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) does

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) does

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) does

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

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

depreciation on\ngoodwill as a result of amalgamation is not allowable in light of sixth\nproviso to Section 32(1) and explanation (3) thereof; read with\nexplanation (7) of Section 43(1) and explanation 2 of Section 43(6

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 allowable under the provisions of section 32 of the Act. 5 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Ground of appeal no.1 is general in nature dismissed as such. 8. Ground of appeal no.2 and 3 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the subsidy

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation is prescribed. The other provisions of law which are relevant to decide the issue in appeal are the provisions of section 50, and 43(6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation is prescribed. The other provisions of law which are relevant to decide the issue in appeal are the provisions of section 50, and 43(6

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

section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate proceedings. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the subsidy received by the appellant on expansion of unit by investment in plant & machinery is capital in nature. Therefore, the amount of subsidy needs 6 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 to be reduced from the cost

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

section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate proceedings. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the subsidy received by the appellant on expansion of unit by investment in plant & machinery is capital in nature. Therefore, the amount of subsidy needs 6 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 to be reduced from the cost

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

section 43(1) of the Act during the appellate proceedings. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the subsidy received by the appellant on expansion of unit by investment in plant & machinery is capital in nature. Therefore, the amount of subsidy needs 6 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 to be reduced from the cost

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that similar issue has come up before this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for past many years wherein it has been consistently held that the Subsidy in question received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentive for Mega Projects

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 43(6) of the Act. This clearly reveals that no depreciation is 11 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. available

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

depreciation loss u/s 72 of the Act of Rs. 3,83,73,199/-. 2.2 While disallowing such set off of loss the Ld. Income tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Aurangabad ['the Ld. AO'] has erred in properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of loss

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

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

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

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin