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

10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds

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

10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds

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

10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance of expenditure or increase

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

10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Act has\nalready been taken into account the amount of subsidy for\ndetermination of the actual cost of assets for computing the\ndepreciation in the computation of income filed along with\nreturn of income of income for the assessment year under\nconsideration. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with these\narguments

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

10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Act has\nalready been taken into account the amount of subsidy for\ndetermination of the actual cost of assets for computing the\ndepreciation in the computation of income filed along with\nreturn of income of income for the assessment year under\nconsideration. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with these\narguments

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

10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Act has\nalready been taken into account the amount of subsidy for\ndetermination of the actual cost of assets for computing the\ndepreciation in the computation of income filed along with\nreturn of income of income for the assessment year under\nconsideration. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with these\narguments

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, citing violations related to the project's completion

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10(10B) to Rs. 52,052/ was disallowed & added back to his income under the head ―Salary. 6.4 Further, it is worth noting that section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 10(20) w.e.f. assessment year 2003-04. Hence, the income of the assessee became taxable. The assessee filed its return of income as a ‘local authority’ claiming no exemption u/s 10(20) for assessment year 2003-04 on 29.10.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.203,32,82,489/- and claiming refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of excess

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act: “i) Sec. 80IB(10)(a) - Date of commencement and completion of the project. The first approval for the project was received vide order No.NA/SR/51/07 dated 30/03/2007, the required date of completion of the project is on or before 31/03/2012. However, the final completion certificate of the project is issued on 30/03/2013 and therefore