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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. We do not see any illegality and perversity in the decision of this Tribunal in the earlier assessment year 2001-02. Even the ld. CIT(A) only followed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 in deciding the issue. Therefore

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\n\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income.\nThe Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income.\nThe Central Board

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

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 or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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

v. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jute\nCorporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (supra), the\nadditional grounds raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.\n12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset strongly challenged the order\nof the Ld. PCIT in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer disposing

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that

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

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that