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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

5) SC 72, 2004 (6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\n\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

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

5) SC 72, 2004 (6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

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

5) SC 72, 2004 (6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business income

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWATI SAKAKAK PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pune Zilla Madhyawati V The Income Tax Officer, Sakakak, S Ward-6(3), Pune. 92 Ranjan Co-Op Society, Shukrawar Peth, Shukrawar Peth S.O., Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatp6962E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

43,219/-, Section 80P(2)(c) of Rs.50,000/- and Section 80P(2)(d) of Rs.67,07,231/-. However, CPC has not allowed 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(c) of the Act. She further stated that CPC has erred in not allowing the assessee’s claim as assessee has rightly ITA No.322/PUN/2025 [A] claimed all the amounts

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI, MALDAD SANGAMNER

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

43,06,981/- Ghulewadi The Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd., 38,48,183/- Sangamner Ashok Sahakari Bank, Sangamner 91,67,621/- B.T.Amrutvahini Sahakari Bank, Talegaon 1,84,644/- Saving Bank Interest -IDBI Bank, ADCC 9,968/- Bank, Amrutvahini Bank, Central Bank Total Rs.1,75,17,397/- 2.1 The above table is appearing in Assessment Order. 3. The Assessing Officer(AO) held

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHAMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARIPATSANSTHA MARYADIT, , MALDAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

43,06,981/- Ghulewadi The Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd., 38,48,183/- Sangamner Ashok Sahakari Bank, Sangamner 91,67,621/- B.T.Amrutvahini Sahakari Bank, Talegaon 1,84,644/- Saving Bank Interest -IDBI Bank, ADCC 9,968/- Bank, Amrutvahini Bank, Central Bank Total Rs.1,75,17,397/- 2.1 The above table is appearing in Assessment Order. 3. The Assessing Officer(AO) held

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 07.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order