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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay). 3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld. Departmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons. Clause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to include the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income. The Central Board

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

disallowed the same. 34 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 onwards allowed said expenditure is revenue expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SATARA, SATARA vs. KARAD PATAN TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITEDTY , KARAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2289/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, V Karad Patan Taluka Prathmik Ward-1, Satara. S Shikshak Sahakari Society Limited, 190 B Shaniwar Peth, Opp.Shivneri Lodge, Karad, Satara – 415110 Pan: Aaaak0559R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Satish U Nade Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 4.5 to 6 of Assessment Order are reproduced here as under : 3 ITA No.2289/PUN/2025 [A] “4.5.) Further, it may be noted that the assessee for the year under consideration has claimed the deduction U's 80P of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

47) (Bombay H.C.)- In this case, the trust was formed to carry out the objects of development of special skills amongst the women. The trust sold certain finished products through the shops, exhibitions, etc. It was held that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable as the motive was not to generate profit. d. Indian Trade Promotion Organization

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PANDHARPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE PANDHARPUR vs. YASHODA MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA , MANGALWEDHA DISTRICT SOLAPUR

47,581/- as against the income returned by the\nassessee at Rs.Nil.\n3. In first appeal after considering the submissions of the\nassessee co-operative society, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the\nappeal filed by the assessee by relying on various decisions passed\nby a coordinate bench of this Tribunal. It is this order against\nwhich the Revenue

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\n\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition 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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income.\nThe Central Board

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

47 Taxman 366 (Bombay).\n3.1 It is further respectfully submit that the argument of the Ld.\nDepartmental Representative is incorrect for the following reasons.\nClause (XVIII) of section 2(24) was introduced in the Income Tax Act\nby Finance Act 2015 applicable from Assessment Year 2016-17, to\ninclude the Government Grants/Subsidy in the definition of income.\nThe Central Board

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 8 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from the co-operative banks. Therefore, the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT has already been decided in favour of the assessee. Even otherwise also, it is a highly debatable issue and the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, therefore, the Ld. PCIT

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

section 40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings