M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) x (PV), (a) the fair market value

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) x (PV), (a) the fair market value

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) x (PV), (a) the fair market value

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:- (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A-L) x (PV), (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme

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

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

56 SOT 106 in support of his decision. Relevant summary of the decision of the Assessing Officer is given in Para 4.10 to 4.12 of the assessment order and the same is extracted here in below: “4.10 I have carefully perused all the above precedents. Majority of these decisions were rendered in the context of pre-amended provisions of section

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 12. Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,52,29,448/- made by the AO u/s.14A r.w. rule 8D. Succinctly, the facts of this ground are that the assessee offered disallowance u/s.14A to the tune of Rs.69,096/. The AO observed that the assessee

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. 12. Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,52,29,448/- made by the AO u/s.14A r.w. rule 8D. Succinctly, the facts of this ground are that the assessee offered disallowance u/s.14A to the tune of Rs.69,096/. The AO observed that the assessee

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

56\n44, 46, 132,\n152 & 159\n4\n2019-20\n32.24 Cr.\n33.24 Cr.\n42,44,147,64\n& 170\n5\n2020-21\n43.41 Cr.\n43.41 Cr.\n6,10,72 & 73\n\n2.\nThe Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the\nsubsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra\nunder the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project

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

56\n3\n2018-19\n37.09 Cr.\n37.09 Cr.\n44, 46, 132,\n152 & 159\n4\n2019-20\n32.24 Cr.\n33.24 Cr.\n42,44,147,64\n& 170\n5\n2020-21\n43.41 Cr.\n43.41 Cr.\n6,10,72 & 73\n2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the\nsubsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra\nunder the Package Scheme

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

56\n3\n2018-19\n37.09 Cr.\n37.09 Cr.\n44, 46, 132,\n152 & 159\n4\n2019-20\n32.24 Cr.\n33.24 Cr.\n42,44,147,64\n& 170\n5\n2020-21\n43.41 Cr.\n43.41 Cr.\n6,10,72 & 73\n2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the\nsubsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra\nunder the Package Scheme

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2 of the agreement which deals with transfer and acquisition of „business assets‟, non-compete fee has not been mentioned and the same has been separately mentioned in clause 12 of the agreement. In any case depreciation is not allowable in respect of non-compete fee as held by Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2 of the agreement which deals with transfer and acquisition of „business assets‟, non-compete fee has not been mentioned and the same has been separately mentioned in clause 12 of the agreement. In any case depreciation is not allowable in respect of non-compete fee as held by Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems