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

depreciation claim has been reduced. Whether such treatment given by the assessee is correct or not needs to be examined. 13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination

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

depreciation claim has been reduced. Whether such treatment given by the assessee is correct or not needs to be examined. 13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination

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

depreciation claim has been reduced. Whether such treatment given by the assessee is correct or not needs to be examined. 13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

14-12-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 19-03-2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 as per the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

14[or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) 15[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 16 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A] , he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-. section (1) 17[***], a return of loss in the prescribed form 18 and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

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

14. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground of appeal no.2 relates to the applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the respondent-assessee company made investments, which yielded the dividend income. The respondent-assessee company itself offered suo motu

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

14. Further, we find CBDT‟s Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 reads as under: “SECTION 71, READ WITH SECTION 115BBE. OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - LOSSES - SET OFF OF FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM AN OTHER - CLARIFICATION REGARDING NON-ALLOWABILITY OF SETOFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2017-18 CIRCULAR NO. 11/2019 [F.N0.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

14. Further, we find CBDT‟s Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 reads as under: “SECTION 71, READ WITH SECTION 115BBE. OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - LOSSES - SET OFF OF FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM AN OTHER - CLARIFICATION REGARDING NON-ALLOWABILITY OF SETOFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2017-18 CIRCULAR NO. 11/2019 [F.N0.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

14. Further, we find CBDT‟s Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 reads as under: “SECTION 71, READ WITH SECTION 115BBE. OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - LOSSES - SET OFF OF FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM AN OTHER - CLARIFICATION REGARDING NON-ALLOWABILITY OF SETOFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2017-18 CIRCULAR NO. 11/2019 [F.N0.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

14. Further, we find CBDT‟s Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 reads as under: “SECTION 71, READ WITH SECTION 115BBE. OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - LOSSES - SET OFF OF FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM AN OTHER - CLARIFICATION REGARDING NON-ALLOWABILITY OF SETOFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2017-18 CIRCULAR NO. 11/2019 [F.N0.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

14. Further, we find CBDT‟s Circular No.11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 reads as under: “SECTION 71, READ WITH SECTION 115BBE. OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - LOSSES - SET OFF OF FROM ONE HEAD AGAINST INCOME FROM AN OTHER - CLARIFICATION REGARDING NON-ALLOWABILITY OF SETOFF OF LOSSES AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2017-18 CIRCULAR NO. 11/2019 [F.N0.225/45/2019-ITA.II], DATED

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14 of 2001 had clarified that under Section 32(2), in computing the profits and gains of business or profession for any previous year, deduction of depreciation