SHRI RAMPURUSH MANDIR SOCIETY,CUNCOLIM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

6 of bye-laws placed on record (Pg 24 of p/b) it was also admitted that, member admitted to the society shall carry no right or privilege to any benefits arising out of such membership. Insofar as the income of the appellant society is concerned the bye-laws specifically states (Pg 27 of P/B) that; entrance fees charged on admission

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 68 of the Act have not been satisfied under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 a) The authorities beloware not justified in treating the 5. unsecured loans of Rs.45,95,101/-as unexplainedon the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below erred in treating the loan transactions as bogus without proper examination under

SCORPIO IRON LTD,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

SHREE AMBEY FORGING PRIVAT LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ITO, WARD - (4), PANAJI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,545/- based on the order of the AO-TP u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act'1961, in spite of the fact that the assesse or their AE has not taken any benefit or exemption / deduction under the Income Tax Act. The Id AO(TP) and Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, 4) has willfully ignored that the assesee

HAVYAKA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

SHREE BASVANNA MAHADEV CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6, BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

SHRI JAI JINENDRA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NIPANI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

BASAV SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI NIYAMIT BAILHONGAL,BAILHONGALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT LTD BHOJ,BHOJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

THE MARATHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, BELGAUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

THE ADARSH MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1-(2) , BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI, AYAKAR BHAWAN vs. VPK URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY , VPK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

KUMTA ADIKE MARATA SOPUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,KUMTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

SAMARTH URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6,96,725/- from its investment of surplus fund with cooperative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 7. We have considered the facts, circumstances