DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

d) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Others of Rs.2,13,379/-. (e) Disallowance of depreciation on certain items of stainless steel tables, stools, trollies used in the laboratory as Plant & Machinery of Rs.1,38,153/-. (f) Disallowance of Product Development Expenditure u/s 35(1)/37 of Rs.14,37,06,712/-. (g) Disallowance of donation u/s 37(1) of Rs.5

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

d) Pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the basis of reopening was the information obtained and the notings in the seized material from a search u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Sri Sachin Nahar

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

d) The decision in the case of ACIT v. Dosti Reality Ltd. [IT\nAppeal No. 2043 (Мит.) of 2022, dated 13-4-2023], is also\ndistinguishable on facts as the \"pooling of interest\" method was\nfollowed to account for the amalgamation in the books of the\namalgamated entity as compared to \"Purchase Method\" adopted\nin the present case

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u/s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research.\n\n17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

D CHORDIYA\n1,75,500\n45,000\n14.\nReferring to the papers enclosed with the chart submitted by the ACIT,\nCentral Circle 1(1), Pune, the details of which are placed at pages 8 to 13 of the\npaper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the\nsame and submitted that the first

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u / s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research. 17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u / s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research. 17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u / s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research. 17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation but the assets ready to use cannot be equated with the special provisions of capital expenditure allowable u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act and there is no decision referred and relied by assessee which specifically deals with the claim of capital expenditure u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act in the year of commencement of business

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

d) We also undertake repairs & Maintenance of air- conditioning systems & Installation e) Sales and Purchase spare part of air-conditioning equipments. f) We also engaged in generation of power by windmills. We have four windmills Since we are engaged in manufacturing we have claimed additional depreciation U/S 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act at 20%. For the Windmill

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 32(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for entitlement of depreciation. It is also seen that ratio of intangible to tangible asset is quite high which. only shows that the appellant has tried to allocate the balance amount other than tangible assets in the category of intangibles in order to claim depreciation. This can be seen from

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 32(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for entitlement of depreciation. It is also seen that ratio of intangible to tangible asset is quite high which. only shows that the appellant has tried to allocate the balance amount other than tangible assets in the category of intangibles in order to claim depreciation. This can be seen from

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance. A copy of the\napproval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07-\n12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee's in-house R&D unit.\n6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted\ndeduction on any amount spent

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the PCIT, Pune-1 relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic banking company in which the public is substantially interested. It is governed