ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2023

KAMAL MAHILA NAGARI S P M.,PANVEL vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

ITA 502/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

SHREE CHOUDESHWARI TOGATVEER KSHATRIYA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 475/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

JAY BAJARANG GRAM BIGARSHETI SAH PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 491/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

JIJAMATA MAHILA NAGARI BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 450/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

KAMAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,ALIBAG vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

ITA 503/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

KIRKEE CANTONMENT BOARD EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-2, PUNE

ITA 460/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

DAUND TALLUKA PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PHATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, PUNE

ITA 426/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

DR DADA GUJAR NAGRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 323/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

KALIBHAIRAVNATH GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 346/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

SHRI ARUNODAY MULTI STATE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SOLAPUR,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE T, PUNE

ITA 334/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

SHREE GHADGENATH GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KARAD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3, PUNE

ITA 771/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

DHANWANTARI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSATH,SATARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 258/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

THE KARAD MERCHANT SAHKARI CREDIT SANSTHA LIMITED,SATARA vs INCOME TAX WARD-1, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

B.G.SHIRKE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 358/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

AJINKAYA MADHYAMIK SHIKAHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA MARAYADIT,SATARA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE

ITA 186/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

ABHINAV CHETANA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 257/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

KALBHAIRAVNATH GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 248/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 544/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Heard23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order. It found that the issue of taxability of interest on NPAs on an accrual basis had been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years, including by the jurisdictional High Court.

KESHA vs MRUTI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD,PAMVEL

ITA 504/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

SHREE KEDARESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 496/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

JANSEVA GB CO-OP PAT SANSTHA LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

ITA 322/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

TDK ELECTRONICS AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),NASHIK vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, PUNE

ITA 174/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India, respectfully following its own earlier decisions on identical facts. Therefore, the income is to be taxed as per the DTAA provisions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE vs DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PUNE

ITA 1937/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Heard23 May 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the transaction, though termed as a loan/advance by the AO, was not covered by the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

JANKALYAN MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 326/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

ISSK EMPLOYEES CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, PUNE

ITA 388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

HUNDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

ITA 340/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

MAHADEVNAGAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT MAHADEVNAGAR,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE

ITA 299/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. This was because the issue of exemption for such interest income was debatable, with conflicting High Court decisions, and the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view.

VARIYAN REALTY,,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

ITSSA 20/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

HINDALCO EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TALOGA vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

ITA 500/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order allowing such deduction was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was wrongly invoked.

SUVARNYUG GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAH PATSANSTHA MARYA NIMGAONKETKI,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 495/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order allowing such deduction was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT PURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

ITA 227/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was correct in deeming the assessment order erroneous regarding the cash deposits due to lack of inquiry. However, it ruled that the assessee is eligible for Section 80P deduction on interest earned from co-operative bank deposits, quashing the Pr. CIT's order on this issue.

VARIYAN REALTY,,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

ITSSA 19/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

M/S VICHAL ENTERPRISES P LTD,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

ITSSA 16/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

VARIYAN REALTY,,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

ITSSA 18/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

M/S VICHAL ENTERPRISES P LTD,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

ITSSA 15/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

M/S VICHAL ENTERPRISES P LTD,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

ITSSA 17/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153A assessments against M/s. Vichal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were not sustainable. Citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that Section 153A assessments require incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to produce any evidence showing Vichal Enterprises actually received on-money payments. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of presumption based on the joint development agreement, stating that Section 292C confers presumption on actual evidence, not inferences. Therefore, the appeals concerning Vichal Enterprises were allowed. Regarding the Section 153C assessments against M/s. Variyan Realty, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note to be improper. The satisfaction note used the statutory expressions "belongs/pertains/relates" interchangeably, without specifying which one was applicable. Citing Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. and Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that search provisions must be strictly construed. The interchangeable use of these terms indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the satisfaction defective. Consequently, the Section 153C assessments were quashed, and the appeals concerning Variyan Realty were allowed.

VASHI PARIVAAR FOUNDATION,PUNE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 517/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed22 May 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(E) as the assessee failed to provide necessary details and did not appear before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.

M/S. KAMAL MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PETPEDHI MARYADIT,PANVEL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

ITA 507/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that proportionate interest expenses should be allowed as a deduction from the gross interest income earned from nationalized banks. Consequently, the net interest income originally offered by the assessee would be taxed.

KEROJI KASHIRAM SONWANE,NANDED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-2, NANDED, NANDED

ITA 497/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AARTI SAIBABA RACHANAKAR SHRI MADHAVRAO ADKAR PRATISTHAN,PUNE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 492/PUN/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the appellant claimed to have submitted the requested information. The CIT(DR) had no objection to remanding the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.

SHRIMANT JAYSINGRAO GHATGE NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 488/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(v) requiring filing by the due date under Section 139(1) for deduction are not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect.

SHRI BHAGWANT SAHAKARI NAGARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT BARSHI,SOLAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 487/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from cooperative banks. It also held that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable on interest income earned from nationalized banks.

SHREE KOTESHWARDEO VISHWASTH,PUNE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 486/PUN/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the required information, but the CIT(Exemption) did not consider it before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

VISION ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 192/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked inquiry and application of mind regarding mandatory provisions of Sections 194A, 269T, and 234C. Therefore, the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was found to be flawless.

MR SUNIL JAYWANT DOMALE,PUNE vs ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE

ITA 18/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of cost of acquisition, as reflected in the balance sheets of preceding years and supported by regular income-tax filings, should be accepted. The AO's adoption of a lower cost was set aside.

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 126/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that deemed rent cannot be charged on unsold properties treated as stock-in-trade. The unsold properties are considered part of the business, and profits from their sale are taxable as business income.

RIDDHI CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 468/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AVIRAJ KRISHNARAO TAYADE,NASHIK vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, MALEGAON

ITA 469/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned ex parte order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

NAMDEO KADAM GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SATARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 471/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits with a co-operative bank, even after the insertion of Section 80P(4). The impugned orders were overturned.

NAMDEO KADAM GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SATARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 472/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 May 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments/deposits with a co-operative bank, even after the insertion of Section 80P(4).