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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing\nprovisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act\ncontained the guidance for treatment of the Government\nGrants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

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

XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing\nprovisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act\ncontained the guidance for treatment of the Government\nGrants/Subsidy relating to depreciation

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,CHAKAN PUNE vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

xviii) of the Act reveals that it is inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 but this provision has also an exclusion of subsidy which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

xviii) of the Act reveals that it is inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 but this provision has also an exclusion of subsidy which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs. ADVIK HI-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

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

xviii) of the Act reveals that it is inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 but this provision has also an exclusion of subsidy which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 43(1) of the Act. In the light of the above discussion, for the purpose of computing depreciation allowable to the assessee, the subsidy amount cannot be reduced from the cost of the capital asset. Accordingly, on both the issues we are of the view that the subsidy received by the assessee is nature and it cannot be reduced

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2992/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 6(1), Vs. Shriniwas Engineering Pune. Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Office- 5, Manasara Apartments, 1108/4, University Road, Near Suryamukhi Datta Man, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aajcs8944F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 03.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit (A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Provision In Package Scheme Of Incentives, 2007 To Show That The Asseessee Is Granted Subsidy Towards Meeting A Cost Of Asset & Cit(A) Has Erred

depreciation and the provisions to Explanation 10 to section 43(1) have no application to the facts of the present case. We are forfeited in taking this view by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Welspun Steel Ltd. cited supra. This decision being that of Jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. Therefore

RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

2. Without prejudice to above ground, in case transfer pricing adjustment of INR 59,87,15,956 in relation to the international transactions pertaining to manufacturing operations is sustained, subvention receipt should be set off against transfer pricing adjustment and the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only to the extent it is excess of subvention receipt

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

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

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

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

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes

AUTOLINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes

AUTOLINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ALKOPLUS PRODUCERS PRIVATE LTD.,, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes

M/S. ALKOPLUS PRODUCERS PVT. LTD.,,LATUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

section 2(24) (xviii) will have no application. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra is a capital receipt and accordingly not chargeable to tax and at the same time, it is not liable to be reduced from the cost of assets for the purposes