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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowance from the interest paid may be made: The assessee society vide its submission w.r.t. above issue which is reproduced verbatim as under: “4. Details of Interest expenditure / Finance Cost: a) Interest paid to members on Deposits. Assessee is also accepting deposits from its members on which interest is paid by the assessee. Total Interest paid on deposit

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

v) of the Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the same again for want of evidences. 13. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee raised the said Ground

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

v) of the Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the same again for want of evidences. 13. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee raised the said Ground

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

v) of the Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the same again for want of evidences. 13. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee raised the said Ground

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

v) of the Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the same again for want of evidences. 13. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee raised the said Ground

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

v) of the Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the same again for want of evidences. 13. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee raised the said Ground

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

v. Disallowance of expenditure relating to Khar Flats Rs.7,61,579/-. vi. Addition of Godown Rent Rs.1,22,484/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances made by Assessing Officer u/s. 40A(2)(a) and estimated