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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

KISHOR GANPAT KARANDE,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Further, he found that the assessee did not utilize the amount of capital gain in purchasing of new asset before filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, even not deposited in any capital gains accounts scheme. The assessee contended that he is illiterate, no knowledge of Income

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

10 section 36 of Income tax Ac of carrying on shall be allowed if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business or profession. As the CSR expenditure (being an application of income) is not incurred the purposes of carrying on business. such expenditures cannot be allowed under the provisions of section 37

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

37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the\ndecision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16\nwherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed.\nThe assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from A Y\n2013-14 (initial year of claim

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

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

disallowed & added back to his income under the head ―Salary. 6.4 Further, it is worth noting that section 10(10B) specifically provides exemption for ―any compensation received by a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any scheme of voluntary retirement or separation‖. However, as per clause 11(viii) of the scheme of Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable