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

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

section 2 (24) does not mean that in\norder to exclude the government subsidy from the definition of\nincome the assessee has to established that the explanation 10 to\nsection 43 (1) is squarely applicable to the subsidy i.e. the subsidy is\nrelatable to assets.\n\n(c) While interpreting the expression \"in accordance with\" the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

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

c) of the Act cannot\nbe applied to the case on hand.\"\n24. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the\ncoordinate bench of the Tribunal in Urmin Marketing (P.) Ltd. (supra),\nwe are of the considered view that provisions of the sixth proviso to\nSection 32(1), Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to\nSection

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) does not mean that in\norder to exclude the government subsidy from the definition of\nincome the assessee has to established that the explanation 10 to\nsection 43 (1) is squarely applicable to the subsidy i.e. the subsidy is\nrelatable to assets.\n(c) While interpreting the expression \"in accordance with\" the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

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) does not mean that in\norder to exclude the government subsidy from the definition of\nincome the assessee has to established that the explanation 10 to\nsection 43 (1) is squarely applicable to the subsidy i.e. the subsidy is\nrelatable to assets.\n(c) While interpreting the expression \"in accordance with\" the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked WDV as per Income Tax Act. It was stressed by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that working of Assessing Officer was wrong. Under section 43(6), Explanation 6 of the Act, he stated that (a) there was no reliance in clause (c

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

43(6) and section 50 held in para 13, which reads as under :- ―13. In Oswal (supra) and Ansal Properties (supra), it was noticed that the Parliament had deleted the provision for terminal depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c

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

43(6) and section 50 held in para 13, which reads as under :- ―13. In Oswal (supra) and Ansal Properties (supra), it was noticed that the Parliament had deleted the provision for terminal depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c

M/S JOHNSON MATHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD,THANE vs. CIT II, THANE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.4368/M/2011 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.-6A, Midc Industrial Estate, Taloja, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra – 410208 …. Pan : Aabcj1620M Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Thane …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Smt. Vasanti Patel प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018

c) of section 43(6) of the Act, which talks of „block of assets‟. However, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on clause (b) of section 43(6) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was of the view that in case depreciation

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the AO made the following additions and determined the total income at Rs.2,76,11,529/- for this assessment year. The details of the additions as summed up by the AO in his order for A.Y. 2007-08 are extracted here as under : ( All figures in Rupees) Income as per the recasted

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the AO made the following additions and determined the total income at Rs.2,76,11,529/- for this assessment year. The details of the additions as summed up by the AO in his order for A.Y. 2007-08 are extracted here as under : ( All figures in Rupees) Income as per the recasted