BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

12 results for “TDS”+ Section 80P(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai126Raipur51Bangalore44Delhi20Kolkata18Visakhapatnam18Chennai16Pune12Surat11Jaipur11Ahmedabad10Lucknow9Cochin7Nagpur6Jabalpur4Karnataka4Amritsar2Jodhpur2Indore2Varanasi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)34Deduction11Section 14810Addition to Income9Section 80P8Section 80P(2)(a)7Disallowance7TDS6Section 143(3)5Section 147

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

ITA 1745/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

c) ……….. 2(d): In respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; 5. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 80P has withdrawn the deduction to the co operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary

5
Section 80P(2)(c)5
Section 194A4

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

ITA 1746/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

c) ……….. 2(d): In respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; 5. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 80P has withdrawn the deduction to the co operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary

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

ITA 1747/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

c) ……….. 2(d): In respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income; 5. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 80P has withdrawn the deduction to the co operative bank other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary

RIL NMD EMP CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)

TDS liability would increase business income of assessee-society which\nwas eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i), deduction under\nsection 80P(2)(a)(i) to be allowed on profit as enhanced by sum disallowed\nunder section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n8. In light of the factual matrix of the case and legal position

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,SANGLI., SANGLI. vs. SHREE GANESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, ASHTA,, ASHTA

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

C. O. No.49/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.2375/PUN/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. PAN : AAAAS8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date of hearing : 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY

ANAND URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 137/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Santosh B GarudFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

TDS on payment of Audit Fees for the year. Here, the Ld. AO as well as CIT (A) has erred in disallowing the amount Rs.15,000, because Rs.50,000/- has already being disallowed by the Appellant in Income Tax Return. Since, it amounts to double disallowance of same payment, the addition needs to be deleted. 3 ITA.No.137/PUN./2024

RIDDHI SIDDHI MAHILA NAGARI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, KARAD,KARAD vs. CIT (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 2216/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2216/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Department. Palkar House, 157, Guruwar Peth, Shri Vitthal Chouk, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aacar0958D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijaykumar N. Kashirsagar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Also In Accepting Deposits From Them. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made One Time Deposit Of Rs.5,95,522/- & Tds Of More Than Rs.7,72,686/-

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar N. KashirsagarFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS of more than Rs.7,72,686/- 2 was deducted u/s 194A of the Act on the PAN of the assessee and still assessee has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee after necessary compliance and approvals. Subsequently, other statutory

MAHALAXMI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2,, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 220/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : “1. The learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts in initiating 147 proceedings for AY 2011- 12 in absence of any tangible material which can substantiate

TULAI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT TULJAPUR,OSMANABAD vs. ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 2081/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 80P

TDS return. The main objective of this scheme is to culture the habit of saving in to the members of the society. Now, as per pigmy deposit scheme norms, members cannot withdraw such deposited amount till the expiry of six month from the date of deposits and if any members withdraw cash before end of six month from date

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/- as claimed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. MANORAMA COOP BANK LTD, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 2157/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2157/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cricle-2, Solapur. Vs. Manorama Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Plot 4, 5, 6 Vijapur Road, Indiranagar S.O., Maharashtra- 413004. Pan : Aajfm6823C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Admitting This Exemption U/S 194A (3)(V) To The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tds On Interest Credits Of Nominal Members Who Are Not Actual Member As Per Definition Of Person Who Is Eligible For Membership As Per Clause

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 40

C. Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date of hearing : 22.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal