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

253 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. Ld.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since the purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual

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

253 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. Ld.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since the purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual

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

253 (SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392. Ld.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since the purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHRIWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

disallowing the deduction of income accumulated/set apart under section 11(2) of the Act is found to be untenable and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the same accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO has made addition by adding Rs.4,93,72,616/- as the assessee trust did not provide list of corpus donors and the genuineness of the donors

DCIT EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

disallowing the deduction of income accumulated/set apart under section 11(2) of the Act is found to be untenable and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the same accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO has made addition by adding Rs.4,93,72,616/- as the assessee trust did not provide list of corpus donors and the genuineness of the donors

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

253 (SC) and in the case\nof CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392.\nLd.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section\n2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since\nthe purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new\nfixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from\nthe actual

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

253 (SC) and in the case\nof CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392.\nLd.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section\n2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since\nthe purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new\nfixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from\nthe actual

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

253 (SC) and in the case\nof CIT Vs. Ponny Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392.\nLd.CIT(A) has also discussed the amendment in section\n2(24)(xviii) effective from 01.04.2016 and has held that since\nthe purpose of the subsidy is not towards acquiring of any new\nfixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from\nthe actual

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance of the claim of\ndeficit holding that there is no merit in the addition(s) made by the Ld. AO\nfor the reasons recorded in pars 5.1 to 5.5.2 of his impugned appellate\norder.\n5.\nDissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the\ngrounds of appeal relate thereto.\n6. The Ld. DR contended that

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case

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

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

2. The appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questions for our consideration:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case