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

VII provides that all Government Grants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as income. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the existing provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there was no specific

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

VII provides that all Government Grants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as income. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the existing provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there was no specific

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

VII provides that all Government Grants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as income. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the existing provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there was no specific

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

VII provides that all Government\nGrants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as\nincome. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the\nexisting provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income\nTax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the\nGovernment Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there\nwas no specific

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

VII provides that all Government\nGrants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as\nincome. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the\nexisting provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income\nTax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the\nGovernment Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there\nwas no specific

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

VII provides that all Government\nGrants except relating to depreciable assets shall be recognized as\nincome. Para 5.1 of the explanatory notes has explained that the\nexisting provisions of explanation (10) of Section 43(1) of the Income\nTax Act, already contains the guidance for treatment of the\nGovernment Grants relating to acquisition of assets. However there\nwas no specific

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

9. So far as the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same since he has deleted the addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. However, a change in law has been brought about the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non obstante clause and an Explanation after proviso. The amendment is reproduced below :- “Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

9. Erred in ignoring the fact that the valuation of trade-marks, patents and know-how has been undertaken by an independent valuer in a fair and reasonable manner and that the value of trade-marks, patents and know-how would not be affected by the value of land. Depreciation on Non compete 10. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

9. Erred in ignoring the fact that the valuation of trade-marks, patents and know-how has been undertaken by an independent valuer in a fair and reasonable manner and that the value of trade-marks, patents and know-how would not be affected by the value of land. Depreciation on Non compete 10. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

9. Erred in ignoring the fact that the valuation of trade-marks, patents and know-how has been undertaken by an independent valuer in a fair and reasonable manner and that the value of trade-marks, patents and know-how would not be affected by the value of land. Depreciation on Non compete 10. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

9. Erred in ignoring the fact that the valuation of trade-marks, patents and know-how has been undertaken by an independent valuer in a fair and reasonable manner and that the value of trade-marks, patents and know-how would not be affected by the value of land. Depreciation on Non compete 10. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

9. Erred in ignoring the fact that the valuation of trade-marks, patents and know-how has been undertaken by an independent valuer in a fair and reasonable manner and that the value of trade-marks, patents and know-how would not be affected by the value of land. Depreciation on Non compete 10. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above

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)

1 )(vii) and not hit by Section 36(l)(via) at all. 47. Detailed arguments on the allowability of the claim has been made by the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A). The order clearly notes the interpretation advanced by the assessee. No factual inaccuracies have been pointed out the lower authorities. It is mere case

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"

vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital

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"

vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the said disallowance of expenditure even after holding the same to be capital in nature.” From the above, it is evident that ground Nos. 1 and 2 relates to claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act and ground Nos. 3 and 4 relates to allowability of claim of business loss relatable to abandonment of the 3 A.Y.1999-2000 proposed