DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

194A (3) of the Act, it appears that it provides for exemption from deducting Tax Deducted at Source [„TDS‟ for short] from the income on interest other than interest on securities as the cooperative societies other than cooperative banks meaning thereby that the cooperative banks are liable to deduct TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

194A (3) of the Act, it appears that it provides for exemption from deducting Tax Deducted at Source [„TDS‟ for short] from the income on interest other than interest on securities as the cooperative societies other than cooperative banks meaning thereby that the cooperative banks are liable to deduct TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

194A(3)(iii)(a) 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as the payee has duly considered the said interest

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

194A(3)(iii)(a) 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as the payee has duly considered the said interest

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

194A of the Act. Further, TCS statement shows a transaction of Rs.60,01,813/- during the year under consideration. In absence of filing of any return of income and in absence of any explanation regarding the nature and source of the above transactions, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposited to the extent of Rs.2,23,20,800/- as unexplained

VISION ENTERPRISES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

TDS’] u/s 194A(1) of the Act. (ii) Repayment of unsecured loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft in violation of provisions of section 269T. (iii)Failure to charge interest u/s 234C of the Act. 2.3 In the light of aforestated observations, the Ld. PCIT by service of notices dt. 08/03/2021 & 11/03/2021 called upon the assessee to show cause

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON vs. PRAMOD BHAICHAND RAISONI,, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS provisions were not applicable on such interest paid to BHP. Not convinced, the AO made the disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee paid interest to BHR. The business of BHR is of banking. Section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON vs. PRAMOD BHAICHAND RAISONI,, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS provisions were not applicable on such interest paid to BHP. Not convinced, the AO made the disallowance, which came to be deleted in the first appeal. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee paid interest to BHR. The business of BHR is of banking. Section

PRESHIT KRISHAN MHATRE,RAIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

3. TDS return other interest (section 194A) – Rs.34261/- 4. He therefore, reopened the case of the assessee after recording satisfaction as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.03.2020 was issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not file any return in response to the notice

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

iii) Tata Capital Finvest Ltd. and (iv) M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. which was debited to the profit and loss account of the 2 ITA No.1619/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 assessee. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the interest paid to these four NBFCs. The Ld. AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 14.12.2019 asking the assessee

LOKMANGAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Near Seva Sadan High School, Solapur – 413 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaal0119J

3 A.Y. : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., iii) A co-operative society registered under the Act shall not be eligible and as such, shall not be admitted to nominal membership in terms of the provisions of this by law,” The appellant further relied on the section 2(19) of Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act as per which Member

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AAYAKAR, BHAVAN, BEHIND NATRAJ HOTEL, AURANGABAD ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANHUR PATHAR MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MARYADIT KANHUR, KANHUR DIST. AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 194A(3)(v) have excluded Co- Operative Bank from Co-operative society to deduct TDS u/s194A on interest paid to member thereof. Thus, the legislative intent is to distinguish co-operative banks from co- operative societies for the purpose of benefits u/s 80P as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co- operative

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANHUR PATHAR MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MARYADIT , KANHUR, KANHUR DIST. AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 194A(3)(v) have excluded Co- Operative Bank from Co-operative society to deduct TDS u/s194A on interest paid to member thereof. Thus, the legislative intent is to distinguish co-operative banks from co- operative societies for the purpose of benefits u/s 80P as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co- operative

VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

194A of the Act. disallowance is required to be made as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the assessing Officer is directed to allow the interest expenditure after making verification of applicability of TDS provisions on interest and after making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if required. Accordingly, the Ground

SANJAY DIGAMBAR MALVE.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2755/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Digambar Malve, The Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Plot No.2, Suvarnamudra Vs Bungalow, Mate Nursery Road, Sawarkar Nagar, Opp. Vishwas Bank, Nashik. Pan: Aftpm 5169 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik Dated 09.09.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Advances Of Rs.13,61,710/- Received By The Assessee From The Company, M/S. Kamal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Should Be Treated As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) In The Hands Of The Assessee. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Was Holding A Running Account With The Above Company & For A Major Part Of The Year, The Assessee Had Advanced Amounts To The Company & Hence, The Advances Received By The Assessee For A Short Period During The Year Were In Consideration Of The Advances Given By The Assessee To Company During The Rest Of The Year & Hence, The Provisions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Applicable To The Instant Case. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Ground, The Assessee Submits That If At All Any Addition Is To Be Made U/S 2(22)(E), Then The Accumulated Profits Of The Company As On 01.04.2011 Should Be Considered For

TDS u/s 194A in respect of the payments made to the above credit co-operative society which was engaged in the business of banking and hence, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not justified. 6. Without prejudice to the above ground, the assessee submits that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by introducing the second proviso was retrospective

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

III did not uphold the contention that the section 40(a)(la) is applicable only in respect of the amount which are actually payable at the end of the year and not which paid within the year. Similarly he did not admit the form No. 15G filed as additional evidence under Rule 46A. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order

RAJESH MOHANLAL BORA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

3) of the Act by Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [for short “AO”] for the assessment year [for short “AY”] 2014-15. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 8 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, ITA No. 1609/PUN/2019 AY: 2014-15 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are; 2.1 The assessee is an individual filed his return of income [for short

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

iii) Disallowed travelling expenses Rs. 20,000/- ------------------ Rs. 10,39,970/-. ------------------ 5. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, on an examination of record, the ld. Pr. CIT has come to know that A.O erred in following manner while passing the assessment order dated 24-12-2013. i) Interest