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

depreciation\nof Rs.23,905/- from providing credit facilities to its members is claimed as\n100% deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Out of net profit of Rs.74,672/-\narising from other activities viz. sale of gas cylinders, hall rent, xerox\ncharges, deduction of Rs.50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) has been claimed and\non the balance

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

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

d) Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 [2022] 135 taxmann.com 335 (Mumbai - Trib) [25-02-2022] 12. The assessee has also relied on the following decisions: i) Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit vs. ITO vide ITA No.171/PUN/2025 order dated 16.06.2025 for assessment year 2012-13 ii) Soyala Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Litd

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

d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(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

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

d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(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

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.

D of the Rules. He may please be directed to delete the said disallowance. 3. The learned C.I.T Appeals has erred in law and facts in confirming/ not deciding the disallowance of the claim of provision for bad & doubtful debts to the tune of Rs. 4,94,01,187/- U/s. 36 (1) (viia) 4. The learned C.I.T. Appeals has erred

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.

D of the Rules. He may please be directed to delete the said disallowance. 3. The learned C.I.T Appeals has erred in law and facts in confirming/ not deciding the disallowance of the claim of provision for bad & doubtful debts to the tune of Rs. 4,94,01,187/- U/s. 36 (1) (viia) 4. The learned C.I.T. Appeals has erred

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.

D of the Rules. He may please be directed to delete the said disallowance. 3. The learned C.I.T Appeals has erred in law and facts in confirming/ not deciding the disallowance of the claim of provision for bad & doubtful debts to the tune of Rs. 4,94,01,187/- U/s. 36 (1) (viia) 4. The learned C.I.T. Appeals has erred

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In this matter, the reliance is against placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it has been averred that:- “……………….35. Eighthly, sub-clause (d) also points in the same direction, in that interest or dividend income derived