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

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

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

vii) of section 56(2) defines the ’fair market value’ of a property other than immovable property to mean: `the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed’. Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. The method has been prescribed in Rules 11U and 11UA. Rule 11UA(1) deals with valuation of various types of assets. Insofar

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

vii) of section 56(2) defines the ’fair market value’ of a property other than immovable property to mean: `the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed’. Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. The method has been prescribed in Rules 11U and 11UA. Rule 11UA(1) deals with valuation of various types of assets. Insofar

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

56. Before us, Ld. A.R. submitted that, here the revenue used some information was gathered from the seized material from the premises of the persons searched as has been mentioned by the CIT (A) in his appellate order and also in reasons recorded in para 2 (supra) that the fact that assessee taken accommodation entry of bogus LTCG was found

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation claimed. (Refer: Pages 32 to 35) 7.3 Very significantly, the books of accounts and the book result have not been rejected. This is very crucial because, as pointed out at para 6.1 above, the surrender in the form of extra amenities was distinct than the surrender towards extra profit from the project. 7.4 Some of the salient features

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April, 2014. The subject year is the first of operation of the Explanation. 50. As has been explained by the CIT(A) in his order (in para 8.1), the amendment seeks to overrule the earlier judgment of various Courts, which permitted the claim

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed