SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

condoned, 2. The provisions of Section 8OA (5) of the Act are directory and not mandatory and therefore deduction under Section MOP cannot be denied by making the provision section 80A (5) of the Act We relied upon decision of ITAT Delhi in case of the Fibre fill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held

GANGAGIRI MAHARAJ BETSARALA MAHILA NAGARI PATSANSTHA LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 455 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information about cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period, assessee was served with notice u/s.142

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against restricting the deduction u/s.80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) on the profits of Roorkee undertaking to Rs.3,11,49,011/- instead of profits from eligible undertaking at Rs.7

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against restricting the deduction u/s.80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) on the profits of Roorkee undertaking to Rs.3,11,49,011/- instead of profits from eligible undertaking at Rs.7

DISCOVERY DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 , NASHIK

80A(5) for claiming deduction under section 10AA, 10B, 10BA and any\ndeduction under heading \"C\" of Chapter VIA, (2) Section 80 for carry forward and\nset off of losses u/s 72 to 74A. Therefore, it is submitted that whenever the\nlegislature intended to enforce an embargo on the assessee to make claims in the\nreturn of income itself

SHRI LAXMI V K S (VIKAS) SEVA SANSTHA MARYADIT BASARGE BK,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.489/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxmi Vks (Vikas) Vs. Ito, Assessment Unit, Seva Sanstha Maryadi Income Tax Department. Basarge Bk, At Basarge, Tal. Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur- 416506. Pan : Aakas3603C Appellant Respondent

delay in furnishing ITR V. The assessee also participated in the assessment proceedings and furnished computation of income and reply to the notices issued by the assessing officer. According to the computation of income furnished by the assessee his income was Rs 10,39,886/- and after claiming deduction under section 80 P 2(a)(i) and 80P 2

M/S. BHATEWARA ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Bhatewara Associates Deputy Commissioner Of Manik Silver Garden Area Income Tax, Circle -9 Near Kamat Hospital Vs. Pune Chinchwad Pune 411033 Pan – Aakfb2742G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2020 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2011-12 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 6, Pune Dated 31.03.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-V/Dcit Cir- 9/368/2014-15 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC of the Act. Case law (2019) 107 taxmann.com 220 (Mum) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India holds that filing of such return under Section 139(1) for claiming Chapter VIA deduction is very much a mandatory condition. We thus adopt stricter direction in light of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar

SHRI CHA RAJ SHAHU GRA BIGR SHETI SAHA PATHA SANSTHA MARYA RANDIVEWADI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.131/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

2 period. Therefore, the said delay is condoned by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. 3. The only issue raised

SWATANTRAVIR SAVARKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment order passed by A.O. u/s, 144 pleased by quashed as the same is without jurisdiction because the notice u/s.148 is issued by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik is without jurisdiction and also

SWATANTRAVIR SAVARKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On the basis of facts, in circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment order passed by A.O. u/s, 144 pleased by quashed as the same is without jurisdiction because the notice u/s.148 is issued by The Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik is without jurisdiction and also

M/S LORGAN LIFESTYLE LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 24th May 2023, received by the Appellant and based on the facts

SAJID DASTAGIR SAYYED,LATUR vs. WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,70,530/- U/s 69A of I.T. Act. made by the A.O. is erroneous as CIT(A) has not considered any grounds of appeal made by appellant

SARASWATI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2 AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition so made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without