SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

Disallowance of software expenses being capital in nature, however, depreciation @ 60% was allowed and net addition was of ₹ 10,70,641/-; c) Adjustment of interest paid under section 220(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The CIT(A) considered various decisions and by relying the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Compaq Electric Ltd. reported in (2011) 16 taxmann.com 385 (Kar.) held the principal amount of loan waived would neither be chargeable to tax u/s. section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowance of the expenses is to be worked out. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokia Sangh Ltd. 'scase (supra) had upheld the proportionate reduction of expenses before allowing the deduction under s.80P(2) of the IT Act. The co- operative societies governed by the provisions of sub-so (2

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

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 under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account of the rents paid to Shri M.N.Navale. This ground is identical to Ground No.1 (a) and 2(b) of appeal for AY. 2008-09. Hence, the ratio of decision for AY 2008-09 applies equally to this AY too. 6.1 In view of the detailed discussions in my order

SHREE TULJABHAVANI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 , PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari The Principal Commissioner Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Of Income Tax - 5, Pune. 17/04, 103, Shri Tuljibhavani Plaza Mangalnagar, Wakad Road, Thergaon, Pune. Pan: Aadas 9902 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5, Pune’S, Order Dated 08.01.2019For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Same May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Alleging That Order U/S 143(3) Passed By Assessing Officer Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same.

2)(a)(i), the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(4), Pune, on 15.07.2016, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The disallowance made by the Assessing Office of Rs. 7,856/- in respect

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2,68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 1,35,555 and Bonus of 5,07,95,670, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Rs. 8. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid on or before

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2,68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 1,35,555 and Bonus of 5,07,95,670, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Rs. 8. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid on or before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVAGHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT , MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SASTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of cash deposit, after necessary verification with regard to the availability of cash balance on the impugned date of deposit in the bank account. Ground No.4

DEEPALAXMI NAGARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SANGAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

220/-) in respect of interest income from Deposits held with Cooperative Banks. 1.1 The ld. CTT-A (NFAC) failed to appreciate that such interest income from its investment in deposits with co-operative banks which was operational income and not taxable as "Other Income" u/s 56 of the ITA. 1.2 The ld. CIT-A(NFAC) failed to appreciate that such