IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Shriniwas Engineering Auto Vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Components Pvt. Ltd., Pune/

Office No.5, Mansara Apartments, ITO, Ward-6(1), Near LIC Building, Pune/

Shivajinagar, Pune 411016 NFAC, Delhi Maharashtra PAN : AAJCS8944F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA Nos.1843, 1844/PUN/2024 and ITA No.114/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 ACIT, Circle-5, Vs. Shriniwas Engineering Auto Pune Components Pvt. Ltd., Office No.5, Mansara Apartments, Near LIC Building, Shivajinagar, Pune 411016 Maharashtra PAN : AAJCS8944F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA Nos.1423 and 157/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2019-20 and 2020-21 Shriniwas Engineering Auto Vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Components Pvt. Ltd., Pune/

Office No.5, Mansara Apartments, ITO, Ward-6(1), Near LIC Building, Pune/

Shivajinagar, Pune 411016 NFAC, Delhi Maharashtra PAN : AAJCS8944F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 13.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH :

The following appeals at the instance of assessee as well as Revenue are directed against the separate orders raising common grounds of appeal in some appeals :

2. We will first espouse the appeals ITA Nos.154 to

156/PUN/ for the A.Yrs. 2016-17 to 2018-19. We take up ITA No.154/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 as the lead case.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“The following grounds of appeal are taken independently and without prejudice to one another.

1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the Ground No. 2 of the assessee in respect of disallowances of Rs.62,169/- and Rs.60,93,292/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of late payment of ESIC and PF beyond the period prescribed under the ESIC and PF Acts respectively.

2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the Ground No. 3 of the assessee in respect of the addition of Rs.43,20,39,280/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the capital subsidy received from the Maharashtra Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives (2007), by treating it to be of revenue nature.

The CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the subsidy of Rs. 43,20,39,280/-is explicitly falling within the definition of income (i.e. revenue receipts) and therefore the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the same to tax is up held.

The CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, since the subsidy of Rs.43,20,39,280/- has been taken into account for determination of the actual cost of the asset in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43, therefore by application of the explanation 10 to clause 1 of s. 43 of the Act, the amount of subsidy will not be treated as income u/s 2(24)(xviii) of the Act.

3. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend/modify or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of High value casting and forging for Automobiles and other Engineering Industries mainly cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, gear box housing, wheel hubs, differential housing, hydraulic pump housing etc. Return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 ₹

furnished on 30.09.2016 declaring loss of 1,45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects under PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour department Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated 30.03.2007 for Fixed Capital Investment by