MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#121 most cited
532

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 144Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 44aasection 264section 192section 17section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 251section 201section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.392/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit At Post: Maldad, Tal.:Sangamner, Dist.: Ahmednagar-422608 Pan: Abbak1395E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2024

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)Section 80P(2)

…‘Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT’ [2010 167 Taxman 346 (SC)], ‘Mavilayi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2021, 431 ITR 1 (SC)], ‘Citizen Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs ACIT’ [2017, 84 Taxmann.com 114 (SC)] and ‘CoC(import) Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company’ [2018, 9 SCC 1 (SC)]. 2.2 When aforestated denial of 80P(2) deduction is assailed in an appeal before first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC accorded as many as three clear opportunities of hearing vide notices dt. 06/10/2023, 03/01/2024 & 11/01/2024 which however remained un-responded. In absence of any representation or written submission from the assessee, the…

Pushpa Ravindra Kodlikeri, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 615/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Kumar Rupavatiya
Section 147Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

…021. Faced with this pecuniary aspect of the impugned reopening herein involving the assessee’s taxable income of less than Rs.50 lakhs as prescribed hereinabove; I adopt stricter interpretation Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.05.2024. [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 vs. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly devoid of merits and is dismissed

ITA/167/2023HC Delhi16 Apr 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 10Section 11Section 115Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 32

…$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 167/2023 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC. versus PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anmol Anand and Ms. Sheetal Kandpal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.04.2024 1. The Principal Commissioner seeks to impugn the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14 Janu…

Maharashtra Nagri Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Hinghanghat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Wardha

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 52/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)(a)

…tatute that this substituted sec.80AC carries any retrospective effect. I thus find no merit in Revenue’s instant preliminary argument going by stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). 3 ITA.No.52/NAG./2023 4. Learned DR next quoted sec.80A(5) of the Act that the assessee had not made the impugned claim even in it’s alleged belated return. Mr. Marathe draw my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in paragraphs 7 to 7.1 rejecting the assessee’s claim in very terms. He failed to rebut the clinching fact emerging f…

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…r, the Ld. AO disallowed the excess claim of exemption which stands fortified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘CCE Vs Calcutta Springs’ [2008] 229 ELT 161(SC) which has been followed subsequently in landmark judgement ‘CoC Vs Dilip Kumar & Co’ reported in [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) wherein their Hon’ble lordship have held that, ‘in case of benefit of doubt or ambiguity in taxing the income, the benefit of doubt goes to State’. However, in respect of penalty in fiscal laws the principle followed is more like the principle in criminal cases. That is to say the benefit of doubt is more easily given to the assessee, and this f…

Maheswari Mining & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2016-17 Maheswari Mining & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Energy Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagcm0805N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar& B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: /04/2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Y. Ratnamkar&For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32A

…t which is exempt. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: :- 71 -: M/s Maheswari Mining & Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 22. A recent 5-Judge Bench judgment was cited by Shri Gupta in Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1. The 5- Judge Bench was set up as a 3-Judge Bench in Sun Export Corporation v. Collector of Customs 1997 (6) SCC 564 was doubted, as the said judgment ruled that an ambiguity in a tax exemption provision must be interpreted so as to favour the assessee claiming the benefit of such exemption. This Court after dealing with a number of judgments relatin…

Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 1447/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub- sec.(9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and conclude that these twin penalties for assessment years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019 also deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly. 5. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.1447, 1401 & 1402/PUN./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on…

Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 1402/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub- sec.(9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and conclude that these twin penalties for assessment years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019 also deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly. 5. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.1447, 1401 & 1402/PUN./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on…

Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 1401/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

…of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub- sec.(9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and conclude that these twin penalties for assessment years 2017- 2018 and 2018-2019 also deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly. 5. These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.1447, 1401 & 1402/PUN./2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on…

Food Corporation of India Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, Banglore

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 422/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

…ase specifically dealing with filing of a sec.139(1) return, sub-clause(ii) could not be pressed in action being in the nature of a general provision only. I adopt principles of stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to conclude that both the learned lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.80P deduction(s) claim(s) by way of sec.143(1)(a)(ii) or 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” has to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.03.2024. [SATBEER SINGH GODARA]…

Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Chandrapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 377/NAG/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

…ase specifically dealing with filing of a sec.139(1) return, sub-clause(ii) could not be pressed in action being in the nature of a general provision only. I adopt principles of stricter interpretation as per Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) to conclude that both the learned lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.80P deduction(s) claim(s) by way of sec.143(1)(a)(ii) or 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” has to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.03.2024. [SATBEER SINGH GODARA]…

Shri Samarth Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Pune vs. Income Taxofficer Wrd8(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 161/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

…eld that the impugned processing dated 03.09.2019 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order, disallowing sec.80P claim is not sustainable in law going by stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). Ordered accordingly. 3. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.03.2024. /- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 08th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //…

Shri Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-4, Panvel, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 1388/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1388/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar, At Post-Shevgaon, Davakinadan Khandoba Ngr., Ahmednagar-414502 Pan: Aaepw7481P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…r, the Ld. AO disallowed the excess claim of exemption which stands fortified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘CCE Vs Calcutta Springs’ [2008] 229 ELT 161(SC) which has been followed subsequently in landmark judgement ‘CoC Vs Dilip Kumar & Co’ reported in [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) wherein their Hon’ble lordship have held that, ‘in case of benefit of doubt or ambiguity in taxing the income, the benefit of doubt goes to State’. However, in respect of penalty in fiscal laws the principle followed is more like the principle in criminal cases. That is to say the benefit of doubt is more easily given to the assessee, and this f…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Baphana Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Nasik

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1168/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G D Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 269SSection 271D

…egory (1) i.e. loans or deposits of money nor in category (2) specified sum i.e. to say the provisions of section 269SS of the Act 6 ITA.No.1168/PUN./2023 by application of stricter interpretation laid in ‘Commissioner of Customs v/s Dilip Kumar’ reported in 9 SCC 1 (SC) do not extend to a transaction beyond (1) loans or deposits of money (2) specified sum. 6. Since in the instant case, the appellant assessee accepted the metal deposit not falling in any of the former category hence outside the ambit of contravention of provisions of section 269SS consequently de-horse from attracting penalty u/s 271D of the Ac…

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…be doubted as commercial & solely for profits’ we requote that, tax being Revenue of the State, stricter interpretation of law is not only imminent, but a constitutional mandate therefore when doubt arises, the decision of ‘CoC Vs Dilip Kumar’ reported [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) comes into play wherein their Hon’ble Lordships have held that, in respect of exemption, the benefit of doubt must always be extended to the State/Revenue. This also stands reiterated in ‘Novopan India Ltd Vs CCE’ [1994] (73) ELT 769 (SC) and ‘Liberty Oil Mills Vs CCE’ [1995] (75) ELT 13 (SC) and recently in ‘CCE Vs Calcutta Springs’ 2008 (229)…

Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, Amravati vs. Jitendra Pransingh Thakur, Amravati

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 108/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…aid the whole or even a part of the consideration herein other than by cash, he is not entitled to be granted any relief going by the principle of stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports, Mumbai ) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. and Ors (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). 9 ITA.No.108/NAG./2019 5. The assessee has placed strong reliance on the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the foregoing impugned addition. 6. We find no merit in the Revenue’s vehement contentions seeking to revive the impugned addition. We wish to make it clear that the Revenue is indeed very fair in not disputing all the foregoing…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central vs. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

…and to support such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) Versus Union of India (UOI) and Others 48. 47 (2020) 9 SCC 1 48 (2017) 15 SCC 702 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 126 of 300 47. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in APO No. 95 of 2020, Birla Corporation Limited submitted that the company is a public limited company, it is listed in BSE and NSE and…

Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Hadapsar Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 1046/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1045 & 1046/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Sr No. 14, Satyaraj Complex, Hadapsar, Pune-411028 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…P(2)(a)(i) as well u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by pressing into service the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] and ‘COC Vs Dilip Kumar’ reported in 9 SCC 1 (SC). 3.2 Insofar as ITA No 1046/PUN/2023 i.e. AY 2020-21 is concerned, the assessment was framed denying the u/s 80P(2) of the Act deduction claimed against interest income of ₹39,01,621/- which was accrued/earned form Fixed/Term deposit investment held various co-operative banks. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 8 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Pats…

Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Hadapsar Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 1045/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1045 & 1046/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Sr No. 14, Satyaraj Complex, Hadapsar, Pune-411028 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…P(2)(a)(i) as well u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by pressing into service the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] and ‘COC Vs Dilip Kumar’ reported in 9 SCC 1 (SC). 3.2 Insofar as ITA No 1046/PUN/2023 i.e. AY 2020-21 is concerned, the assessment was framed denying the u/s 80P(2) of the Act deduction claimed against interest income of ₹39,01,621/- which was accrued/earned form Fixed/Term deposit investment held various co-operative banks. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 8 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Pats…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad vs. M/S Rbs Business Services P. Ltd

ITA/143/2023HC Punjab & Haryana08 Feb 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Section 127

…both the Appeals is common. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd.; (2022) 9 SCC 1, to submit that the jurisdiction of the High Court would lie at High Court of Bombay as the assessment order has been passed by the Assessment Officer at Bombay. 3. The apex Court in the case (Supra) has held as under:- “43. Under Section 127, the authorities have the power to transfer a case either upon the request of an assessee or for thei…