BANK OF BARODA v. H.C.SHRIVASTAVA

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 10,90,953/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Findings & Analysis : 2. In this case,…

NASHIK DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD NASHIK,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CANTER, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.727/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Nashik District Police Co- V The Income Tax Officer, Operative Credit Society Ltd., S National E Assessment Sagar Plaza, Third Floor, Above Centre, Delhi. Axis Bank, Audumbar Nagar, Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422003. Pan: Aacan6075F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.02.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 31.03.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Barada vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 1,48,78,730/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 5. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised…

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Barada vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days…

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Barada vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 151 days…

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Barada vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs.66,80,575/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Delay : 1.1 There is a delay of 157 days i…

P P PANDURANG GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.854/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 P P Pandurang Gramin V The Assessment Unit, Bigarsheti Sahakari S Income Tax Department, Patsanstha Maryadit, Delhi. 1, Ramnagar, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422001. Pan: Aaaap7456J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ganesh Budruk – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], U/Sec.250 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2024.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Appeal, Erred In Disallowing The Deduction Of Rs.41,65,363/- On Account Of Interest Income Earned Out Of Fixed Deposit With Cooperative/ Nationalised Bank & Which Is Eligible For P P Pandurang Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit [A]

…in law, the learned CIT Appeal, erred in not following the jurisdictional ITAT Pune, decision on the similar issue which is binding on the lower Authorities as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Barada vs H C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 41,65,363/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, no one app…