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. relevance of the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the extent that the amount of subsidy is to be reduced as per the method provided in the explanation. It is emphasised that the expression "In accordance with" used in sub clause (a) of clause (xviii) to section 2 (24

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. relevance of the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the extent that the amount of subsidy is to be reduced as per the method provided in the explanation. It is emphasised that the expression "In accordance with" used in sub clause (a) of clause (xviii) to section 2 (24

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

depreciation. relevance of the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the extent that the amount of subsidy is to be reduced as per the method provided in the explanation. It is emphasised that the expression "In accordance with" used in sub clause (a) of clause (xviii) to section 2 (24

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. relevance of the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the extent that the amount of subsidy is to be reduced as per the method provided in the explanation. It is emphasised that the expression "In accordance with" used in sub clause (a) of clause (xviii) to section 2 (24

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. relevance of the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act is limited to the extent that the amount of subsidy is to be reduced as per the method provided in the explanation. It is emphasised that the expression "In accordance with" used in sub clause (a) of clause (xviii) to section 2 (24

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

Section 2(24) of the\nIncome Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset.\n\n3.\nAt the outset it is respectfully submitted that, if the argument of\nthe Ld. Departmental Representative is to be accepted as correct and\nthe subsidy is to be treated as income, the 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

Section 2(24) of the\nIncome Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset.\n3. At the outset it is respectfully submitted that, if the argument of\nthe Ld. Departmental Representative is to be accepted as correct and\nthe subsidy is to be treated as income, the 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

Section 2(24) of the\nIncome Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset.\n3. At the outset it is respectfully submitted that, if the argument of\nthe Ld. Departmental Representative is to be accepted as correct and\nthe subsidy is to be treated as income, the depreciation

M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

depreciable long-term capital asset, whether the assessee can be denied exemption under section 54E merely because, section 50 provides that the computation of such capital gains should be done as if arising from the transfer of short-term capital asset? 24

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

24,35,238/- as against nil determined by the assessee. We have examined the position set-up by the Assessing Officer. Quite clearly, clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB envisages adjustment for the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

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

24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant contests the applicability of Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate

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

24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant contests the applicability of Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate

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

24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant contests the applicability of Explanation 10 below to section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate

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

Section 32(1) by Finance Act, 2021 to\nthe effect that no depreciation was allowable on goodwill would take\neffect from 01/04/2021 and would be applicable from assessment\nyear 2021-22 and subsequent years.\n28. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present\ncase, legal position and judicial pronouncements as noted above, we\nare of the considered

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

24,101/- claimed by the assessee alleging use of properties for business purposes. 4. In response to notice u/s.263 of the Act, assessee filed written submissions wherein it has been stated that the properties in question were rented for part of the year and thereafter they have been utilized for business purposes and therefore a valid claim has been made

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

section 139(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that the appellant has claimed to be carry forward loss to subsequent assessment years. The AO has disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation

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

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) 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 (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2AA) of section 35 or section 35AD

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 50 & 50C. The AO observed that the school building was constructed keeping in view needs of school and intention of building was on commercial basis. The AO also observed that assessee has shown business income from A.Y.2008-09 onwards. The assessee has not claimed any depreciation on school building. The AO has mentioned that capitalization of interest till completion

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

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

depreciation amounting to Rs.27,24,418 on non-compete payment on the contention that non-compete payment is not in the nature of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" as stated in the definition of intangible assets under Section