DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

32-35]\n2. The limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that\nfunction at par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of\nthe public. Thus, if the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is now to be seen, what is\nclear from section 3 read with section 56 is that a primary

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in these peculiar circumstances. 4. The assessee does not press for his third substantive ground of challenging section 41(1) - cession of liability addition of Rs.50,000/- representing deposits received from M/s. Shubha Associates keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Rejected accordingly. 5. Lastly comes the long term capital gains addition issue

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

32,00,000/- trustees Therefore, the ld.AO asked the assessee that in view of provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(2)(c) of the Act, the assessee needs to justify the reasonableness of the amount paid to Mr. Vikram Chavan and Ms. Pratima Vikram Chavan as mentioned in the above stated table. In the show case notice

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

32(1) and Explanation (3) thereof, read with Explanation (7) of\nSection 43(1) and Explanation-2 of Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years

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

section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the subsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. We therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and the common grounds of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years

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

2). Since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases referred (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground of appeal

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making following observations which are contrary to the facts of the case and in law: ...It is seen that the appellant itself has disallowed Rs. 15,33,215/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. This disallowance has been made on adhoc basis and has not been substantiated by the appellant

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in making following observations which are contrary to the facts of the case and in law: ...It is seen that the appellant itself has disallowed Rs. 15,33,215/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. This disallowance has been made on adhoc basis and has not been substantiated by the appellant

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

disallowance made by the assessing officer of the Additional Depreciation. The CIT(A) in para 5.3 of the order has mentioned as under : Quote , “On this issue law is clear the existing provision of Section 32(1)(iia) does not allow /provide 50% additional depreciation in the subsequent year. In fact in this regard amendment has been made

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

section 43(1) of the Act and therefore\nsection 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the\nsubsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income\nliable to be taxed for the year under consideration.\ntherefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and\nthe common grounds of appeal No.2 raised

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

section 43(1) of the Act and therefore\nsection 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the\nsubsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income\nliable to be taxed for the year under consideration.\nWe therefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and\nthe common grounds of appeal No.2

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

section 43(1) of the Act and therefore\nsection 2(24)(xviii) of the Act comes into operation and the\nsubsidy received by the assessee is to be treated as income\nliable to be taxed for the year under consideration.\ntherefore fail to find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and\nthe common grounds of appeal No.2 raised