MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) the\npurchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles\nintended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its\nmembers, or (v) the processing, without the aid of power, of the\nagricultural produce of its members, the whole of the amount of profits\nand gains of business attributable to any one or more of such\nactivities

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

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

iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or (v) the processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its members, the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities

YASHWANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

iv) To accept deposits under the various schemes and pay interest (v) To lend money to members on reasonable interest. ITA No.644/PUN/2024/ Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit [A] 5.2 In the case under consideration, the AO has held assessee to be a Co-Operative Bank based on the Capital and Reserve of the assessee and based on the activities

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iv. The entire income the assessee is eligible for claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) and80P(2)(d) of the Act. 5 ITA No.575/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 4.2 However, the Ld. PCIT did not agree with the above submissions/ contentions of the assessee and by observing that the funds immediately not required for providing credit facilities are invested

SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAH. SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) & v & it is exaccepted by the learned A.O. & CIT(A) 4. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.2538/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14. 5. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.4,39,469/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks

SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAH. SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) & v & it is exaccepted by the learned A.O. & CIT(A) 4. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.2538/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14. 5. All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.4,39,469/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks

ARMED FORCES EX-OFFICERS MULTISERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS NFAC, PUNE

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

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

capital gains amounting to INR 20,17,659/- twice while computing the income as per the assessment order under section 147 rws 144 rws 1448 dated 26 March 2022. Also, Tax credits such as TDS Advance and self- assessment tax paid for the has not been given while computing final tax liability. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

iv) Addition on account of bad debts written off of Rs.53,23,92,280/-. (v) Addition on account of wrong claim of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by directing the Assessing

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

iv) Addition on account of bad debts written off of Rs.53,23,92,280/-. (v) Addition on account of wrong claim of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by directing the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

iv) Addition on account of bad debts written off of Rs.53,23,92,280/-. (v) Addition on account of wrong claim of brought forward loss of Rs.21,79,03,048/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had partly allowed the appeal by directing the Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Local Area Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Jalandhar 82 taxmann.com 387 (Amritsar ITAT) 4. Yes Bank vs. ACIT 88 taxnmann.com 431 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. Caylon Bank vs. DCIT 31 taxmann.com 231 (Mumbai ITAT) 6. ACIT vs. Chatrapati Rajeshri Sahu Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. IT Appeal No. 798 of 2011 (ITAT- Pune) I have considered the assessment order