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

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

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. 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

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

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9 to Shivchand Parakh, partner of 12/209 to 211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private Ltd. of Thakkar Group of Nashik vide agreement dt. 25th April 2013. Necessary documents were also executed

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

vii. Deduction/Exemption u/s.10A/10AA viii. Income from house property ix. Reduction in profit due to ICDS x. International Transaction(s) xi. Loss from currency fluctuations 3. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were duly served upon the assessee along with detailed questionnaire and the assessee made compliance to such notices. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transactions, the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

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

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

9. In case the shops under question are part of the property which was in possession of the author of the trust deed at the time of execution, then the assessee clearly falls within the exception as mentioned in proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. 10. The assessee has raised an alternate plea

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.

depreciation on investment Held Till Maturity (HTM) Securities of Rs.1,42,03,113/- and confirmed the addition on account of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts of Rs.4,94,01,187/-. As regards, the claim for set off of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-, the ld. CIT(A) only directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim

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.

depreciation on investment Held Till Maturity (HTM) Securities of Rs.1,42,03,113/- and confirmed the addition on account of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts of Rs.4,94,01,187/-. As regards, the claim for set off of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-, the ld. CIT(A) only directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim

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.

depreciation on investment Held Till Maturity (HTM) Securities of Rs.1,42,03,113/- and confirmed the addition on account of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts of Rs.4,94,01,187/-. As regards, the claim for set off of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-, the ld. CIT(A) only directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

vii) of the Act on account of write off on debts by the non-rural branches of the assessee bank. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that the said claim was raised by way of an Additional Ground of Appeal before the CIT(A) vide letter dated 26.08.2008 but the same has not been inadvertently considered

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