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

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. 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

ITO, PUNE vs. THE GOVERNMENT SERVENTS MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

disallowed the entire claim of 80P deduction to the\nappellant.\n6.3 After giving finding in Para 45 for ascertaining the status of\nan entity as a co-operative society, in para 46 and 47, Hon'ble\nApex Court in Mavilayi judgment had distinguished the Kerala\nco-operative society Act vis-à-vis the Multipurpose co-operative\nsociety Act in Citizens

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

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

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

ITO, PUNE vs. THEGOVERNMENTSERVENTSMAHARASTRACO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

disallowed the entire claim of 80P deduction to the\nappellant.\n6.3 After giving finding in Para 45 for ascertaining the status of\nan entity as a co-operative society, in para 46 and 47, Hon'ble\nApex Court in Mavilayi judgment had distinguished the Kerala\nco-operative society Act vis-à-vis the Multipurpose co-operative\nsociety Act in Citizens

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,89,64,823/- claimed by assessee under section 54B of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the capital gain on transfer of land. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the CIT (Appeals) have erred in considering year of transfer of capital asset and charging

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

v) requires the processing of the return of income by the CPC after 8 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 taking into consideration the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

v) requires the processing of the return of income by the CPC after 8 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 taking into consideration the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

47,14,614/- was disallowed vide Clause (v) read with Note 15 ITA No. 915/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 No. 1 thereto. On verification of company’s audit report r.w. tax audit report, we find that the assessee has disallowed the amount only to the extent of contingent liability provided in the books of account, thus, leaving thereby no excess balances

NERE VIBHAG NAGARI SAH. PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2374/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nere Vibhag Nagari Sah. V Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-5(4), Pune. 61, Mangalwar Peth, Tal – Bhor, Pune – 412206. Pan: Aacan2385C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 31.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 04.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

47,585/-. 5. In the Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee before us, Assessee has stated that it had claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.33,18,280/-, we have verified the Return of Income filed by the Assessee and noted that Assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80P(2) of Rs.33,18,277/- in the Return of Income. 6. Section

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein