SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance made u/s 40A (2)(b) on account of payment of rent in excess made to M. N. Navale ( Bigger HUF), a related party. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision of section 13

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance made u/s 40A (2)(b) on account of payment of rent in excess made to M. N. Navale ( Bigger HUF), a related party. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision of section 13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance made u/s 40A (2)(b) on account of payment of rent in excess made to M. N. Navale ( Bigger HUF), a related party. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision of section 13

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance made u/s 40A (2)(b) on account of payment of rent in excess made to M. N. Navale ( Bigger HUF), a related party. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision of section 13

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance made u/s 40A (2)(b) on account of payment of rent in excess made to M. N. Navale ( Bigger HUF), a related party. 2. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provision of section 13

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed to which the assessee did not file any objection. The Ld. AO after considering the part reply of the assessee, for the reasons recorded in para 3.6 of the assessment order and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 188 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided on 13-04-2017. 15. In respect of ground No. 5 relating to disallowance

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided on 13-04-2017. 15. In respect of ground No. 5 relating to disallowance

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

2. The learned A.O. in this year had held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) on the following grounds – a. Purchase of vehicles in the name of the trustees. b. Payment made to Shri R.B. Memane. c. Rent paid to M/s. Angels. 3. Out of the above five items on which section 13

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

2. The learned A.O. in this year had held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) on the following grounds – a. Purchase of vehicles in the name of the trustees. b. Payment made to Shri R.B. Memane. c. Rent paid to M/s. Angels. 3. Out of the above five items on which section 13

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

2. The learned A.O. in this year had held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) on the following grounds – a. Purchase of vehicles in the name of the trustees. b. Payment made to Shri R.B. Memane. c. Rent paid to M/s. Angels. 3. Out of the above five items on which section 13

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

13(2)(h), as well as the\nprescribed modes of investment under Section 11(5). Therefore, the\nFAO was required to disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 11 of the\nIncome

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,749.00/-\nB) Deduction From total Income under chapter VI-A\na) Profit form Providing Credit facility to Members U/S 80P(2)(ai) RS 31,75,810/-\nThe assesse is co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra state co-operative\nsocieties Act 1960 formed for the benefit of Gramsevak i.e employees of Grampanchayat and\nZilha Parishad Servants\nin the Ahmednagar

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

disallowed the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act\namounting to Rs.3,04,88,392/- treating the same as other income'.\nAccordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,04,88,392/- as\nincome from other sources

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

b) Disallowance of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) expenses of Rs.42,49,840/-. (c) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Employees of Rs.22,31,668/-. (d) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Others of Rs.2,13,379/-. (e) Disallowance of depreciation on certain items of stainless steel tables, stools, trollies used in the laboratory as Plant & Machinery of Rs.1,38,153/-. (f) Disallowance

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) of s. 2 would include surcharge and additional surcharge.‖ 13 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 20. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court answered the question in favour of revenue observing as under:- ―In our judgment it is unnecessary to express any opinion in the matter because the essential point for determination is whether surcharge is an additional mode or rate