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

section 2(24(xviii) of the Act. 31. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal 32. Ld. DR firstly contended that incorrect claim was made by the assessee in the return by the assessee showing it as exempt income and on the other hand has reduced it from the actual cost of the fixed assets

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

section 2(24(xviii) of the Act. 31. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal 32. Ld. DR firstly contended that incorrect claim was made by the assessee in the return by the assessee showing it as exempt income and on the other hand has reduced it from the actual cost of the fixed assets

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

section 2(24(xviii) of the Act. 31. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal 32. Ld. DR firstly contended that incorrect claim was made by the assessee in the return by the assessee showing it as exempt income and on the other hand has reduced it from the actual cost of the fixed assets

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

section 2(24(xviii) of the Act. 31. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal 32. Ld. DR firstly contended that incorrect claim was made by the assessee in the return by the assessee showing it as exempt income and on the other hand has reduced it from the actual cost of the fixed assets

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

section 2(24(xviii) of the Act. 31. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal 32. Ld. DR firstly contended that incorrect claim was made by the assessee in the return by the assessee showing it as exempt income and on the other hand has reduced it from the actual cost of the fixed assets

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

depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide registration No.4597 dated 21-06-1989. The assessee trust was formed with various aims

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

section 35(2AB) following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., 31 taxmann.com 300 (Gujarat). (v) As regards to the disallowance of Rs.1,64,05,330/-, being the payments made to two foreign parties, namely, (i) Vakzine Project Management, Germany and (ii) Medicine in need corporation

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

31-03-2018 declaring loss at Rs.81,09,510/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO assessed the loss at Rs.73,24,305/- inter alia making addition on account of delay in payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and denial of carry forward business loss for subsequent assessment year. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi confirmed

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

31,415/-. Further, the AO noted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Times Guaranty Limited (ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/Mum/2008), the unabsorbed depreciation relating to A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 2000-01 is to be dealt with as per the provisions of section 32(2

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

31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission

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

31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission

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

31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

section 50(2), he computed the short term capital gain by reducing the written down value and value of the block from the sale consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-, for determining short term capital gain at Rs.31,31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. SMT. CHHAYA VALMIK NIKHADE,LATE SHRI VALMIK R. NIKHADE, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

LATE SHRI WALMIK RAGHUNATH NIKHADE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the total income of the company shall be computed,— (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56 shall be the value, on the M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) x (PV), (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity