ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2024

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3),, PUNE

ITSSA 122/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80IB(10) were inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with effect from 01.04.2010. It referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Mandavi Builders (supra), which held that these clauses are prospective and apply to transactions entered into on or after 01.04.2010. The Supreme Court observed that if a residential unit was allotted prior to 01.04.2010, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction even if conveyance was registered subsequently. The Tribunal also cited the Ahmedabad Bench's decision in Patel Jashwantlal A vs. ITO (supra), which held that the amendment restricting allotment of more than one unit to the same person is not applicable to allotments made prior to 01.04.2010, and where payments were made before the amendment, the claim for deduction should be allowed. Since the lower authorities had not verified the payment details made prior to the amendment, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the details of payments made on the basis of bookings and allotments prior to 01.04.2010 and, if substantial payments were made, to allow the deduction in light of the cited precedents. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 9/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AHMEDNAGAR vs GORESHWAR GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT , PARNER, GOREGAON, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 630/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). They followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and higher courts, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 8/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 23/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

ITA 1282/PUN/2024[NA]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by issuing show cause notices with insufficient time for response and potentially improper service. Therefore, the matters were remanded for fresh consideration.

SHRI SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH TRUST,AURANGABAD vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1309/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the assessee.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 7/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 24/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 25/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 22/PUN/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

VIJAY AGENCIES,LATUR vs ITO WARD 2, LATUR

ITA 1277/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed additions without properly dealing with the assessee's explanations against the AO's adverse comments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 6/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

ITA 1551/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, where part consideration was paid, constituted an agreement under the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b). Therefore, the stamp duty value as on the date of the allotment letter should be considered.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITA 60/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was conditional and common for multiple assessment years, which is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.

BHARATI VILAS MALUSARE,MANDANGAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

ITA 707/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present necessary documents and evidence.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 5/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

ITA 1284/PUN/2024[NA]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice by issuing show cause notices with insufficient time for response and potentially improper service. Therefore, the matters were remanded for fresh consideration.

SHRI SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH TRUST,AURANGABAD vs CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, AURANGABAD

ITA 1310/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the assessee.

SKODA AUTO KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AURANGABAD vs THE ITO , WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1323/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de-novo adjudication, finding the reasons for non-compliance and non-prosecution to be sufficient. The impugned NFAC order was set aside.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 4/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 21/PUN/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

UDAYSINGH SHANKARRAO PATIL,KAVANE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), KOLHAPUR

ITA 1658/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2012-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax, as there was no undisputed admitted income on which advance tax would be payable. The matter was remanded for decision on merits.

GANESH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 3/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

SUBHASHAPPA V MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 26/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the revenue was conditional and common for all the impugned assessment years (2008-09 to 2014-15). Citing *Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta*, *PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar*, *SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT*, and *ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co.*, the Tribunal found that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis after perusing the entire records for each assessment year, rather than as a mechanical exercise. A conditional approval is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Section 153A assessments, all dated March 22, 2016, were deemed not sustainable and were quashed. The penalty proceedings under Section 271 were also quashed as they were consequential to the invalid quantum assessment. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in terms.

NILESH SURESH CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs ITO WARD 2(3), JALGAON

ITA 1649/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal on merits as required by law. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 607/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits and without granting a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SHRI MANOJ HEMCHAND MUNDAWARE,NASHIK vs ITO WARD 2, MALEGAON

ITA 1616/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: Heard24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill-health and lack of education. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of deposits.

N SAI MULTI STATE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,LATUR vs ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

ITA 1110/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in denying the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income earned from banks on investments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view and allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Principal CIT erred in exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to disallow the claim. The Tribunal respectfully followed the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs KARMAVEER SHANKARRAO KALE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1135/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) may not have the power to remand, the Tribunal does. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the excise duty payment.

SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 18/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the JCIT was conditional and common for multiple assessment years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015). The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and a coordinate bench's decision in SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd., concluded that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis for each assessment year after a thorough review of records, not as a mechanical exercise. Furthermore, a conditional approval is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also cited ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. to support the view that assessments framed with invalid Section 153D approval must be quashed. Consequently, all the impugned Section 153A assessments, dated March 22, 2016, were found unsustainable and quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE-2, AURANGABAD vs SHRI SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA, LATUR

ITSSA 34/PUN/2022[F.Y. 2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the JCIT was conditional and common for multiple assessment years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015). The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and a coordinate bench's decision in SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd., concluded that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis for each assessment year after a thorough review of records, not as a mechanical exercise. Furthermore, a conditional approval is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also cited ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. to support the view that assessments framed with invalid Section 153D approval must be quashed. Consequently, all the impugned Section 153A assessments, dated March 22, 2016, were found unsustainable and quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AURANGABAD vs SHRI SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA, LATUR

ITSSA 35/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the JCIT was conditional and common for multiple assessment years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015). The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and a coordinate bench's decision in SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd., concluded that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis for each assessment year after a thorough review of records, not as a mechanical exercise. Furthermore, a conditional approval is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also cited ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. to support the view that assessments framed with invalid Section 153D approval must be quashed. Consequently, all the impugned Section 153A assessments, dated March 22, 2016, were found unsustainable and quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AURANGABAD vs SHRI SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA, LATUR

ITSSA 33/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the JCIT was conditional and common for multiple assessment years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015). The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and a coordinate bench's decision in SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd., concluded that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis for each assessment year after a thorough review of records, not as a mechanical exercise. Furthermore, a conditional approval is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also cited ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. to support the view that assessments framed with invalid Section 153D approval must be quashed. Consequently, all the impugned Section 153A assessments, dated March 22, 2016, were found unsustainable and quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

N SAI MULTI STATE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,LATUR vs ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

ITA 1109/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in denying the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income earned from banks on investments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view and allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Principal CIT erred in exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to disallow the claim. The Tribunal respectfully followed the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

ITA 1283/PUN/2024[NA]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024Dismissed

The tribunal found that the cancellation of provisional registration and approval was consequential to the denial of regular registration and approval. Therefore, the appeals became infructuous.

SHRI DEEPAK AMBADAS NAGARGOJE,AHMEDNAGAR vs ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR(JAO), AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1218/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case and substantiating details. The assessee was also instructed to submit details without seeking adjournments.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs SANJIVANI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT GURUDWARA ROAD, KOPARGAON DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. PIN-423601, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1280/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made with other cooperative societies (including cooperative banks) qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be in consonance with settled legal position.

SANTOSH SUBHASHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , AURANGABAD

ITSSA 19/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval granted by the JCIT was conditional and common for multiple assessment years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015). The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents including Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta, PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and a coordinate bench's decision in SMW Ispat (P.) Ltd., concluded that Section 153D approval must be granted on a standalone basis for each assessment year after a thorough review of records, not as a mechanical exercise. Furthermore, a conditional approval is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also cited ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. to support the view that assessments framed with invalid Section 153D approval must be quashed. Consequently, all the impugned Section 153A assessments, dated March 22, 2016, were found unsustainable and quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs DCIT EXEMPTION, CIRCLE, PUNE

ITA 1285/PUN/2024[NA]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024Dismissed

The tribunal found that the cancellation of provisional registration and approval was consequential to the denial of regular registration and approval. Therefore, the appeals became infructuous.

ADIVASI UNNATI SEVA MANDAL,RAJUR DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 948/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing them to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the identity and genuineness of donors with evidence. The AO was instructed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence.

MR. UDAISING U. JADHAV,PUNE vs PR. CIT-3, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 760/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had not made necessary enquiries. The assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment after proper enquiries, causing no prejudice to the assessee.

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs SHRI. SATYA SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION, LATUR

ITA 626/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented undisclosed business income and not unexplained investment. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not applicable, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

THE SOLAPUR PYRAMID SPIRITUAL TRUST,SOLAPUR vs CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 1248/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) provided an unreasonably short period for the appellant to respond to a notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered.

SHARP EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHIWANDI vs CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1208/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) provided insufficient time for the trust to respond to a notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

SHARP EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHIWANDI vs CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1185/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) provided insufficient time for the trust to respond to a notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

SOMNATH NAGNATHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITA 61/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.

RAM SINGH MEWADA,MADHYA PRADESH vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

ITA 1159/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue's representative objected to the withdrawal. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

SOMNATH NAGNATHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITA 62/PUN/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.

SOMNATH NAGNATHAPPA MUKTA,,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

ITA 63/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.