INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AHMEDNAGAR vs. H U GUGALE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, JAMKHED

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2964/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2026AY 2022-233 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80P of the Act had already been adjudicated in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, with the Tribunal having allowed the same in those years. Copies of these prior orders were placed on record. The Revenue did not present any contrary material to support its contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld it, thereby allowing the deduction under Section 80P. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated April 1, 2026, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee, an Association of Persons (AOP), claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,37,54,073/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reducing its total income to Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny due to reasons including large interest income from a banking company, high interest expenditure, and significant advances compared to proprietor funds. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction. The CIT(A), relying on previous Tribunal orders for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21, allowed the deduction. The Revenue has now appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-23. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the CIT(A)'s decision, which was upheld, relied on previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21, suggesting the assessee likely reiterated the grounds established in those prior appeals. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P of the Act. The judgment does not specify any particular authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the Revenue in its appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणेपीठ�, पुणे INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2964/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2022-23) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, H U GUGALE NAGARI AHMEDNAGAR. SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BEHIND JAMKHED ROAD, TAL. NATRAJ HOTEL,AURANGABAD JAMKHED, DIST. Vs. ROAD , AHMEDNAGAR 414001, AHMEDNAGAR AHMEDNAGAR-414001, AHMEDNAGAR-413201, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAAAH6035P अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Prasad S Bhandari (through virtual) ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Uodol Raj Singh सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 08.10.2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 1st April, 2026 in relation to the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP) and has filed the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 29.09.2022 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80P

ITA 2964/PUN/2026 H U GUGALE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT of the Act at Rs.7,37,54,073/-. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons : 1. Claim of deduction u/s 80P by entities that have received large amount of interest from a Banking Company. 2. High interest expenditure and huge advances in excess of total proprietors/partners fund. 3. High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts. 3. Assessee furnished the reply along with details in response to notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. However, not convinced with the said reply, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) after taking into cognizance the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs. 2018-19 and 2020-21 vide its orders dated 14.122.2023 and 18.04.2023 has allowed the deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 4. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal . 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the record. The grievance of the Revenue is against the order of ld.CIT(A) in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80P of the Act. We find this very issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs. 2018-19 and 2020-21 has allowed the same, copies of the orders placed on record. Revenue has not brought anything contrary in support of its contentions. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of ld.CIT(A) and uphold the same allowing the deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

ITA 2964/PUN/2026 H U GUGALE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 12th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.13 10:33:55 +05'30' Copy to: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BEHIND NATRAJ 1 HOTEL,AURANGABAD ROAD , AHMEDNAGAR 414001, AHMEDNAGAR-414001, MAHARASHTRA H U GUGALE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, 2 JAMKHED ROAD, TAL. JAMKHED, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR-413201, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PUNEBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →