JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

2 was filed on 06.08.2018 declaring Rs.Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Malegaon (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) denying the exemption u/s 80P on the ground that the appellant had not filed

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 263 of the Act. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court from para 10 to 16 read as under: “10. The law on exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is settled by the decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Kolhapur Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur – 416234 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaak0230D Appellant Respondent

depreciation in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. 9. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue reads as under : “3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Id.CIT

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Sec 80AC was amended from A.Y. 2018-19 and applicable prospectively. 4. The appellant craves

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Sec 80AC was amended from A.Y. 2018-19 and applicable prospectively. 4. The appellant craves

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation claimed. (Refer: Pages 32 to 35) 7.3 Very significantly, the books of accounts and the book result have not been rejected. This is very crucial because, as pointed out at para 6.1 above, the surrender in the form of extra amenities was distinct than the surrender towards extra profit from the project. 7.4 Some of the salient features

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.

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision

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.

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision

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.

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision

SWA ASHOKRAO BANKAR NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON (B) TAL. NIPHAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1749/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a sum of Rs. 50,10,957/-, being proportionate business income from sugar mill, without rejecting the audited books of accounts and without finding any defects in the books of accounts, the action of working out such proportionate profit is beyond the provisions of law. Further Ld. AO also erred in not granting deduction

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

80P is to be amended to give effect to the above proposal. It is also proposed to amend section 2(24) to provide that profits and gains of business of banking (Including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of 'income' (with effect from 1st April

THE MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD. ( IN LIQUIDATION),DHULE vs. THE ITO, WARD- -1, DHULE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

section 21(2) of the DICGC Act, 1961 r.w. regulation 22 of the DICGC General Regulation, 1961. 4. Appellant contends that the addition made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC of Rs. 1,02,39,932/- on account of Profit as appearing in the Profit & Loss A/c in uncalled for as the said Profit

ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANNAPURNA MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

80P of the Act of its entire profit i.e. Rs.1,60,45,544/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues : the following issues:- i. Depreciation Claim ii. Investments/Advances/Loans 2 iii. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income iv. Sales Turnover/Receipts v. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

2 Rs.7,77,387/- and restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.40,915/-, however, the facts is clear and also on the records that the assessee had shown excess WDV by Rs.8,18,302/- on building.” 3. There would be hardly any issue that the Revenue’s in instant former substantive ground raises purely a reconciliation issue