Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

156 ITR 11High Court1985#117 most cited

What is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. authority for?

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

541

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. · 156 ITR 11 · conflict of High Court decisions · non-jurisdictional High Courts · assessee-favorable interpretation · tax law principle · Section 80P(2)(d) · co-operative society · judicial precedent application

Also reported as

36 CTR 197

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 143(3)Section 80P(4)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 263Section 143(1)Section 250Section 2(19)

Issues it is cited on

section 80(2)(d)section 57(i)section 80(p)(2)(a)section 2(19)tax collected at sourcesection 286section 200a(1)(c)section 80p(4)section 161section 80p(2)(c)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 200a(1)

Judgments citing Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

ACIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad vs. Rangareddy Dist Judl Employee Mutually Aided Co Operative Society, Hyderabad

ITA 1269/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ety on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Honble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the H…

Pathare Prabhu Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 591/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Chapekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…luded that a co- operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr [1983] 36 CTR 197/[1985] 156 ITR 11/[1983] 15 Taxman 594 (Bombay), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the…

Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 302/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 302/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Shree Siddheshwar Co-Op Vs Ito-Ward-6, Civil Hospital Road, Credit Society Limited, . Belagavi-590001. P B Road, Kakati, Karnataka. Belgaum-591113, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aaifs6553Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Santosh Kumar Dlatthe.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & 2 Ita. No..302/Pan/2024 Shri Siddeswar Co-Op Society Limited.. Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ty on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of nonjurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

The New India Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited, Mapusa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 244/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 244/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The New India Multi Vs Ito-Ward-1(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Purpose Co-Op Society Ltd, . Plot.No 5, Edc C/2,Ug Floor, Saidanha Complex,Patto Plaza, Business Towers,Near Panaji.-403001, Court Circle, Bardez Goa. Mapusa-403607 . Goa. Pan .No. Aadat8151H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Amogh Arlekar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manikandan.S.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Addl/ Jcit(A) Kolkata Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble 9 ITA. No. 244/PAN/2024 The New India Multi Purpose Co-Op Society Limited.. High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of nonjurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2071/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2021-22 Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Saraswati Complex, Malviya Chowk, Panchavatikaranja, Nashik-422002 Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(1), Nashik Pan: Aaaan2859D अपीलार्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shrisanket Joshi Department By : Shriramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 31-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ays”) 2018- 19 & 2021-22. Since The Issues Involved Are Identical The Same Were Heard Together & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: ShriSanket JoshiFor Respondent: ShriRamnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985)156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to bepreferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Nashik District Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2070/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: ShriSanket JoshiFor Respondent: ShriRamnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985)156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to bepreferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Mhada Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 6372/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainmhada Karmachari Vs. Assessment Unit Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ito Ward 23(2)(1) Room No. 47, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Gruhanirman Bhavan, Lalbaugh, Parel, Bandra (E), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400012. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaiam3078P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…decision rendered in the case of Totagars, Co-operative Sale Society (supra). 8. No judgement by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on this issue was brought to our notice. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of K. Subramanian vs. Siemens India Ltd. 156 ITR 11 has held that when two conflicting decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts are available, the view that 6 Mhada Karmachari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai favours the assessee is to be preferred. Accordingly, following the first decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society (supra) and the deci…

D.S.K. Madhuban (Wing A&B ) Co -Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6383/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80

…o claim of deduction under s. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian & Anr. vs. Siemens India Ltd. & Anr (1983) 36 CTR (Bom) 197: (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

D.S.K. Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society Lid, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6382/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80

…o claim of deduction under s. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian & Anr. vs. Siemens India Ltd. & Anr (1983) 36 CTR (Bom) 197: (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

The Bardez Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mapusa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Panaji, Goa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 74/PAN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 74/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) The Bardezurban Co- Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), Panaji.-403001, Operative Credit Society . Goa. Limited, Shop.No.19 20 . Cosmos Centre Mapusa, Bardez-403507, Goa. Pan .No. Aaaat6217F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.S.J.Kamat.Ar Revenue By Shri.Narendra Reddy.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld. Dr Has No 2 Ita. No. 74/Pan/2024 The Bardez Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited.. Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…perative Credit Society Limited.. cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of nonjurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (1) Pune, Pmt Building, Swargate

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, 415/2 A, Shrine Complex, Somvar Peth, Pune -411011 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Pune Pan : Aaaah2281D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 05-11-2024 15-01-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- *1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.8,84,993/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Interest Income Earned From Deposit With Pdcc Bank. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P (2) (D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S.80P Of Commission Receipts Of Rs.53,52,723/- After Deducting The Salary Expenses Of Rs.3,00,202/- From The Total Commission Receipts Of Rs.56,52,925/-. Being The Same Income Is Received From The Mseb On Account Of Running Cash Counter For Mseb Bill Payments & The Same Is Treated As Income From Other Sources. 4. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Sanpada vs. Income Tax Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 5495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Ltd., Navi Mumbai Shop No. 23, Shantiniketan Housing Vs. Society, 30/A, Balaji Tower, Sanpada East, Thane, Maharashtra – 400705 Pan/Gir No. Aadas3793G (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant GhumareFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM Samarth Surksha Rakshak Co-op Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Ltd., Navi Mumbai Shop No. 23, Shantiniketan Housing Vs. Society, 30/A, Balaji Tower, Sanpada East, Thane, Maharashtra – 400705 PAN/GIR No. AADAS3793G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Prashant Ghumare Respondent by : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.0…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Sangli, Income Tax Department vs. Shivpratap Nagari Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Vita Dist-Sangli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1338/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Jaihind Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Narayangaon, Pune vs. Nafc-- Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals), Nafc-Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1210/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1210/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Jaihind Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P The Income Tax Officer, Narayangaon Suvarna vs. Ward – 10 (5), Chemaber, Junnar, PUNE PUNE PIN – 410504 PAN AAAAJ2456Q Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s…

N.D.A. Employees Co. Op. Credit Society Limiteds, N.D.A. Campus Khadakwasala vs. Income Tax Officer, Pmt Building Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1689/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Satish NadeFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1689/PUN./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2018-2019 N.D.A. Employees Co.Op. The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited, Income Tax Office, PMT Khadakwasala, N.D.A.Campus, vs. Bldg., Shankarsheth Road, PUNE– 411 023. PUNE – 411 037. PAN AAAAN0953C Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Satish Nade For Revenue : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2024 ORDER…

Kannad Taluka Shishak Seevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Kannad, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1621/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1621/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Kannad Taluka Shishak The Income Tax Officer, Sevakanchi Sahakari Ward–1(1), 2nd Floor, Jivan Patsanstha Maryadit, vs. Suman Bldg., Connaught KANNAD. Dist. Aurangabad. Place, AURANGABAD. PIN – 431103 PAN AADAK9386K PIN – 431 001. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 25.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.20…

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar. vs. Goreshwar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Parner, Goregaon, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Payal RathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Shrikrupa Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Alibaug vs. Income Tax Ward 3 Panvel, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1089/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ronak H. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shrikrupa Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha ITO, Ward 3, Panvel Maryadit Vs. 103, First Floor, Vijay Durga, Near ST Stand, Raigad – 402201 PAN : AABAS8397J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ronak H. Jain Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT, DR Date of hearing : 12-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 20-09-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC…

Indore Sahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit, Dairy Compound, Manglia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 234ASection 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…ty on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Indore Sahakari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit, Dairy Compound, Manglia vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 293/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 234ASection 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…ty on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…