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 chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 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

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 chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 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

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 chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 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

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 chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 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

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

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)\nis taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to\nSection

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

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 of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project)\nis taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to\nSection 43 of the Income

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

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 of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project)\nis taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to\nSection 43 of the Income

AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2300/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 2 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), had been violated by the appellant and thus, thereby, erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,46,406/- u/s. 92C on the basis of the order of the TPO u/s. 92CA(3) dated 18.01.2016 in the case of the appellant company. 2] The learned AO / DRP erred

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page No 64

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page No 64

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

section 43(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04- 1999. Thus, he allowed Rs.16,82,400/- being excess depreciation. Subsequently, the AO vide his rectification order dated restricted the disallowance on account of depreciation to Rs.6,64

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE vs. FUTURA BIOPLANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 2 (1A), inserted by the Finance Act, 2009, has held that the income derived by the assessee from such activity as agriculture inasmuch as the Explanation 3 states that “income derived from saplings or seedlings grown in a nursery shall be deemed to be agricultural income”. The Tribunal further relied on CBDT Circular No.01/2009 dated 27-03-2009 explaining

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,UJJAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.491 & 492/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., Ninora Toll Plaza Ninora, Ujjain – 456 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aafcm7676Q

64,68,843/- ; assessment year wise, respectively, followed by non- condonation of delay for 420 days each therein. 3. It emerges first of all that the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in para 3.1 to 3.4 has considered the assessee’s condonation averments of communication gap at various levels. Suffice to say, hon’ble apex court’s land mark

MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,UJJAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.491 & 492/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., Ninora Toll Plaza Ninora, Ujjain – 456 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aafcm7676Q

64,68,843/- ; assessment year wise, respectively, followed by non- condonation of delay for 420 days each therein. 3. It emerges first of all that the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion in para 3.1 to 3.4 has considered the assessee’s condonation averments of communication gap at various levels. Suffice to say, hon’ble apex court’s land mark

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 32(2) of the Act as discussed above. 5.5 However, it is seen that in this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the disallowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation totaling to Rs.19,89,09,661/- pertaining to AY 1997-98 to AY 2000-01, while as noted by the AO, the assessed unabsorbed depreciation pertaining

ATHARVA POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIRUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Cricle-1(1), Gat No.596, Dhoksanghvi, Pune. Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, Pune – 412209. Pan: Aahca 1363 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit Tapadiya– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Punedated 25.07.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex Party Order. 2. The Ld. Ao Erred & Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Of Rs.1,93,452/- On Account Of Delayed Contribution Made To Pf Although The Same Was Paid Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return U/S 139(1). 3. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Treatment Made W.R.T. Subsidy Received Of Rs.2,72,696/- Under Ip Scheme By Deducting The Receipt From Block Of Asset. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Subsidy Received Under Ip Scheme As Capital Receipt.

64,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act at the income of Rs.66,78,940/-. 2.1 In the assessment order the Assessing Officer(AO) disallowed Rs.1,93,452/-, which was employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, which was deposited by the assessee after the due date mentioned