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

13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2020-21 accordance

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

13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2020-21 accordance

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

13. We note that post amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the subsidy is required to be treated as income for the year other than the subsidy or grant which is taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2020-21 accordance

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

13. The ld. AR referred to section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to contend that deduction made from an employee’s salary for the month of October should suffer disallowance only if it is not paid by 15th December. This argument was premised on the language of section 5, which says that the wages of every person

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who allowed the appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who allowed the appeal

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

13,002/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 06.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.52,052/- on account of variation in respect of issue of exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Act and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of variation in respect of issue of exemption u/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act by holding

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 as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

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 as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest earned from this\nimpermissible investment which is, as per Schedule 3 (List of interest\nreceived/accrued

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

10. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) held that the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct proper inquiry and verification regarding the substantial payments made by the assessee trust to specified persons as per section 13(3) of the Act. The failure to conduct such an inquiry has resulted in an erroneous assessment order. Relying on various

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13 major ports operating in India. The entire income of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) was exempt under the provisions of section 10(20) of the Act upto and including the assessment year 2002-03. For the purpose of section 10(20), the term ‘Local authority’ was given a restrictive meaning by insertion of an Explanation to section 10

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

13) read with section 1448 of the Act, dated 26/02/2022 is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus both the conditions specified under section 263 of the Act are satisfied in this case and it is a fit case to invoke provisions of the said section. Hence, the assessment order dated 26/02/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18 is hereby partly