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 as per Income Tax, the said subsidy is nevertheless to be treated as income under clause (xviii) of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset. 3

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 as per Income Tax, the said subsidy is nevertheless to be treated as income under clause (xviii) of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset. 3

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 as per Income Tax, the said subsidy is nevertheless to be treated as income under clause (xviii) of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset. 3

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 as per Income Tax, the said subsidy is nevertheless to be treated as income under clause (xviii) of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset. 3

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 as per Income Tax, the said subsidy is nevertheless to be treated as income under clause (xviii) of Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act as the subsidy is not relatable to any asset. 3

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

2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question

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

2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question

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

2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question

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

2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question

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

Appeal is allowed

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

2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

2) of section 148." 4 ITA.No.381/PUN./2024 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220 dealt

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.64683703/- made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') since, the dividend and interest on bonds, share of profit from firms are the sources

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

3 stands dismissed.”\n\n16.\nIn the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly\nheld that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the\nactual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation\nof depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section\n43(1) have no application to the facts

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

3 stands dismissed.”\n16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly\nheld that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the\nactual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation\nof depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section\n43(1) have no application to the facts

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

3 stands dismissed.”\n16.\nIn the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly\nheld that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the\nactual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation\nof depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section\n43(1) have no application to the facts

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

3 K-414 Nandurbar 06/03/2006 4713155/- A.Y.2011-12 4 AD-27 Sinnar 30/03/2009 10574871 A.Y.2013-14 5 GP-44 Sangli 31/03/2012 2976463/- A.Y.2015-16 6 GP-45 Sangli 21/03/2012 3700598/- A.Y.2015-16 Total 2,84,42,603/- 19. He further noted that the above claim is supported by an Audit report from the Chartered Accountant. He, therefore, asked the assessee to justify the claim

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

3 K-414 Nandurbar 06/03/2006 4713155/- A.Y.2011-12 4 AD-27 Sinnar 30/03/2009 10574871 A.Y.2013-14 5 GP-44 Sangli 31/03/2012 2976463/- A.Y.2015-16 6 GP-45 Sangli 21/03/2012 3700598/- A.Y.2015-16 Total 2,84,42,603/- 19. He further noted that the above claim is supported by an Audit report from the Chartered Accountant. He, therefore, asked the assessee to justify the claim

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

3 K-414 Nandurbar 06/03/2006 4713155/- A.Y.2011-12 4 AD-27 Sinnar 30/03/2009 10574871 A.Y.2013-14 5 GP-44 Sangli 31/03/2012 2976463/- A.Y.2015-16 6 GP-45 Sangli 21/03/2012 3700598/- A.Y.2015-16 Total 2,84,42,603/- 19. He further noted that the above claim is supported by an Audit report from the Chartered Accountant. He, therefore, asked the assessee to justify the claim