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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

disallowed and added back. Then only, it will be allowed in the year of actual payment made. The ld.AR submitted before us that assessee had never collected the sale tax from customers in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97 and had never debited sales tax in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97. However, these are mere

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

2)(v) provides that no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made there-under. However, the provisions of bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viia) does not include provision

RAMESH GARWARE CHARITY TRUST,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.776/PUN/2025 [A] “1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Addl./Jt.Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Thiruvanantpuram, under National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

220/- after disallowing the claim of interest paid on borrowed capital in respect of Flat No. 11 at Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai amounting to Rs.1,22,59,620/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO on 14.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act on total income of Rs.1

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

220/- after disallowing the claim of interest paid on borrowed capital in respect of Flat No. 11 at Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai amounting to Rs.1,22,59,620/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO on 14.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act on total income of Rs.1

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT PURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mohol Nagari Sahakari The Principal Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Commissioner Of Income Marketyard Mohol, Tal. Mohol, Tax, Pune. Dist. Solapur – 413213. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaam 1185 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S N Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena - Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 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, Pune Dated 26.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr. Commissioner Has Erred Both On Facts As Well As Law In Initiating Proceeding U/S 263 & Passing Order Under U/S 263, Without Application Of Mind. Mohol Nagari Sahakri Patpurvatha Sanstha Maryadit [A]

disallowing Sec 80P claim on Bank Interest and adding deposits of high value receipt of cash. 5. Without prejudice to above grounds on validity of proceedings: 5.1 Pr.CIT has erred in giving finding that provisions of Sec 80P(2)(a)(i) are not applicable for Interest received from Co- operative Bank Deposits. When precedent in own case and other cases

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in\nthe same terms as Section 57(1), Bose J speaking on behalf of the Court, observed:\n“It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in\nfact any profit was earned.\"\nIt is indeed difficult to see how after this observation

SAMATA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSHTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.763/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samata Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward- 14(5), Pune. Patsanshta Maryadit, Prasanna Residency, At & Post Nira, Tal- Purandar, Dist. Pune- 412102. Pan : Aabas5442E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld Pcit, Pune-4 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Pcit Erred In Initiating Action U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Assessing Officer'S Assessment Order Under Sec 143 (3) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue. 2) The Learned Pcit Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & Ignoring The Order Of The Jurisdictional Hon'Ble Pune

2 Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2017-2018 in reaching the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's allowance of deduction u/s 80P was incorrect. 3) The learned PCIT's order under section 263 be set aside and cancelled. 4) Such other orders be passed as deemed fit and proper. 5) The appellant prays for leave