HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present\nappeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned.\n5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O\nwhile framing the assessment had after making necessary\nverifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had\nexceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

NASHIK DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

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

c) However, it has also held that deduction cannot be given on the profits and gains attributable to credit facilities given to non-members. (Para 33 & 45). d) It was also held that the loans given to nominal members would also qualify for the purpose of deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) 6.5 This decision shows that deduction

NASHIK DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

delay on the partof the\nassessee in filing of the present appeal before us,therefore, the\nsame merits to be condoned.\n5.\nOn merits, it was submitted by the ld.A.R, that as the А.О\nwhile framing the assessment had after making necessary\nverifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had\nexceeded his jurisdiction by seeking to review

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES EMP CO. OP. CHS,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 4, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoned the genuine delay of 48 days caused on account of non-receipt of order by the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in laws and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 4,30,505/- u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned AO and treating the same as interest income

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(c

CHANDRAPRABHU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 Ld. AO has erred in (CIT-A erred in confirming) making the disallowance of claim of Rs.38,19,685/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. 2 ITA No.1858/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 2

MAHARAJA MULTI STATE CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on 9 ITA.No.942/PUN./2024 the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial

INCOME TAX OFFICER , INCOME TAX OFFICE PANDHARPUR vs. DHANSHREE MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD, MANGALWEDHA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SAMARTH NAGARI SHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, JALNA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 6 ITA.No.1414/PUN./2023 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

SANGRAM NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT ,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SANGLI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SHIVPRATAP NAGARI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, VITA DIST-SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

C Srivastava (256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs.66,80,575/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

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

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the Return is filed beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and does not apply to the impugned assessment year involved herein namely Assessment Year

SATARA ZILLA GRAMSEVAK SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1446/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satara Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari The Pcit-3, Pune. Patpedhi Maryadit, Vs 161/B/4, Zilla Gramsevak . Bhavan, Shahunagar, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aacas8773K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2024

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SHRIKRUPA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,ALIBAUG vs. INCOME TAX WARD 3 PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2020-21

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

MAHESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SHREE GUDALESHWAR GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAH PAT SANSHTA MARYADIT, GUDAL,RADHANAGARI, KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking