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

73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to Section 43 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the above subsidy for the reason that

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

73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to Section 43 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the above subsidy for the reason that

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

73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to Section 43 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the above subsidy for the reason that

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

73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income u/s 2(24)(xviii), because explanation (10) to Section 43 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the above subsidy for the reason that

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

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 43 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the above\nsubsidy for the reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD,, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.773/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

depreciation claimed is Rs. 67,73,998. The AO was of the view that the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) are effective

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1236/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Commissioner Of Income V Dudhutpadak Sangh Limited, Tax, S B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416234. Pan: Aaaak0230D Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2019.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Rs.5,62,220/- On Account Of Fixed Assets On Which Project Subsidy Was Received From National Dairy Development Board As The Department Has Contested The Issue Before The Supreme Court. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R]

depreciation claimed is Rs.67,73,998. 4 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R] The AO was of the view that the provisions of section

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 of Rs.4,74,83,007\npertaining to earlier years, to the assessee as per the provisions of Section\n72 & 32(2) of the Act respectively. The fact on record reveals that the\nassessee had disclosed the brought forward loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation in the ITR for the year 2016-17 (Page 73

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

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 Tax Act is not applicable to the above\nsubsidy for the reason that

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

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 Tax Act is not applicable to the above\nsubsidy for the reason that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

73,95,728/- instead of refund declared in return of income of Rs.31.40,690/-.” 2.1 Aggrieved by the order u/sec.143(1) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of ld.AR

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

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 Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

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 Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report