BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

2)(b) of the Act. That leaves us with the first issue i.e. allowance of deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of such provision on account of standard assets. 23. So far as the provision created for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act which

CIL EMPLOYEES CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION, WARD-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1600/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cil Employees’ Co Op Credit V Exemption, Society Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Cummins Inida Ltd., Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan:Aabac8908M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal 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.2020-21 Dated 29.02.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated 28.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

24) (viia) of the I.T. Act and considering the facts and circumstance of the case assessee it is held 4 that assessee is not eligible for deduction either u/s 80P(2)(b) or u/s ITA No.1600/PUN/2025 [A] 80P92)(b). In view of the provision of section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(b) of Rs.4

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SINDHUDURG DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,, SINDHUDURG

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

2,985.88 lakhs, is far in excess of the provision. 1 have careful considered the submission of the appellant and the circumstances and reasons for which the impugned additions were made. In this case, one only has to find out the total sum of qualifying amount under section 36(1)(viia) and the total amount of provision made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SINDHUDURG DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,, SINDHUDURG

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

2,985.88 lakhs, is far in excess of the provision. 1 have careful considered the submission of the appellant and the circumstances and reasons for which the impugned additions were made. In this case, one only has to find out the total sum of qualifying amount under section 36(1)(viia) and the total amount of provision made

KRISHNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

2. That as per the grounds of appeal, the main grievance of the assessee is two-fold: first confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,56,07,610/- on account of bad and doubtful debts and second confirmation of disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs towards provision for standard assets. That with regard to the facts involving bad and doubtful debts, during assessment proceedings

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.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

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.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

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.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relating to the provision

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relating to the provision

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act relating to the provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins the first year of operation of the Explanation, very less clarity was available on its applicability. 49. The claim of the assessee has been denied by the lower authorities solely based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

viia) should not be restricted to provision made for rural advances only and therefore why the differential amount of Rs.219.32 crore working as per Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.879,11,91,472/-.\n\n8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

viia) disallowance pertaining to bad and doubtful debts as the same is found to be a recurring issue between the parties. This tribunal‟s latest co-ordinate bench order in assessment year 2010-11 appears to have restored the instant issue to the assessing authority as follows: “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In ground

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

viia) disallowance pertaining to bad and doubtful debts as the same is found to be a recurring issue between the parties. This tribunal‟s latest co-ordinate bench order in assessment year 2010-11 appears to have restored the instant issue to the assessing authority as follows: “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In ground

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view that

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view that

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view that