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

142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects under PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour department Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated 30.03.2007 for Fixed

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

142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects under PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour department Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated 30.03.2007 for Fixed

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

142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects under PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour department Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated 30.03.2007 for Fixed

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36(1)(iii), the ld. AR submitted that during the course of day-to-day business the assessee has provided funds to various unrelated parties. These parties have neither paid interest nor refunded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36(1)(iii), the ld. AR submitted that during the course of day-to-day business the assessee has provided funds to various unrelated parties. These parties have neither paid interest nor refunded

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

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

142(1) of the Act. So far as\nthe issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007 for Fixed

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

142(1) of the Act. So far as the\nissue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007 for Fixed

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

142(1) of the Act. So far as the\nissue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007 for Fixed

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

142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 3 ITA.No.79/PUN/2024 Sagar Babanrao Awatade Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant

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

2)(a)(ii) of the Act, it is pertinent to\nnote that these provisions form part of the Chapter dealing with\n\"Capital Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions

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

142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld.AO observed that assessee has claimed capital expenditure on scientific research at ₹ 3,72,88,916/- u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Ld.AO also observed that during the year under consideration, there are no purchases, no stock in hand and no sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, PUNE, PUNE

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

2) and 142(1) along\nwith questionnaire were issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO\") calling\nfor the requisite details in response to which the assessee filed its reply/\nwritten submission(s) from time to time.\n3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed\nthat the assessee in its return for the relevant

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 (1) seeking clarifications. One of the main contentions of the AO was that the valuation report that was prepared was based on projected financial statements prepared by the management. Accordingly, the details and facts given by the management on which the said M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation was done was sought by the AO. Further, the valuer

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 (1) seeking clarifications. One of the main contentions of the AO was that the valuation report that was prepared was based on projected financial statements prepared by the management. Accordingly, the details and facts given by the management on which the said M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation was done was sought by the AO. Further, the valuer

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 (1) seeking clarifications. One of the main contentions of the AO was that the valuation report that was prepared was based on projected financial statements prepared by the management. Accordingly, the details and facts given by the management on which the said M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation was done was sought by the AO. Further, the valuer

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 (1) seeking clarifications. One of the main contentions of the AO was that the valuation report that was prepared was based on projected financial statements prepared by the management. Accordingly, the details and facts given by the management on which the said M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation was done was sought by the AO. Further, the valuer

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

142 (1) seeking clarifications. One of the main contentions of the AO was that the valuation report that was prepared was based on projected financial statements prepared by the management. Accordingly, the details and facts given by the management on which the said valuation was done was sought by the AO. Further, the valuer had also qualified as report