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

disallowance. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act 9. The learned ADIT-CPC has levied an interest

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

disallowance. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act 9. The learned ADIT-CPC has levied an interest

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under section\n37(1). Accordingly, the directions of the Hon'ble DRP are bad in law\nand ought to be quashed. Consequently, the final assessment order\ndated 27 June 2024, is bad in law and ought to be quashed.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nVs. Panvel Circle, Panvel\nRespondent\n2\nITA No.1778/PUN/2024\nSempertrans India Private Limited\n2. On the facts

ATUL SHASHIKANT GARBHE ,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed as claimed in ITR. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the IT Act are being initiated separately for under-reporting of income on account of claiming wrong relief under section 89 of the I.T.Act thereby reducing the tax liability which resulted issuance of refund. Total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Income declared as per Return Rs.82

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

234A, 234B, 234C\n& 234D if applicable. Issue demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty\nnotice under section 274 r.w.s.270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis-\nreporting and under-reporting of income.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in\nappeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:-\n“Based

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

234A, 234B, 234C\n& 234D if applicable. Issue demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty\nnotice under section 274 r.w.s.270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis-\nreporting and under-reporting of income.\n\nAggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in\nappeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:-\n\n“Based

SHRI. DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, KOLHAPUR

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 and 14 being general, are dismissed. The grounds of appeal No.13 which is related to levy of penalty u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

Section 234A and 234B of the Act, on account of the unanticipated transfer pricing adjustment made by theTPO and disallowance

RAJHANS NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MOGALPURA vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1773/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajhans Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S. Ward-2, Pune. 1, Mogalpura, Sangamner, Tal-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 422605. Pan: Aaaar3555J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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.2018-19, Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.154 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance is without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be deleted 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to a other grounds, Ld. CIT-Appeal and Ld. CPC have erred in confirming/making the addition of Rs 15.02.580/- under section 143(1) which is without jurisdiction and hence, bad in law and thus, the same

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

disallowing of Rs. 9,56,344/- in respect of all the properties including self occupied property. 3) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming interest under section 234A

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2254, 2255 & 2277/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur / C/O S.V. Phadnis C.A., Acit, Circle-2, 613, E Ward, Phadnis Kolhapur. Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur. Pan : Aaaas9803L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur [(‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Commonly Dated 09.08.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All Above Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.2254/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

disallowance u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1,71,51,013/- on account of interest received from Saraswat co-op bank. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. has erred in law and on merit in holding that a Co-op Bank does not fall under the purview of coop society referred to in section

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2254, 2255 & 2277/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur / C/O S.V. Phadnis C.A., Acit, Circle-2, 613, E Ward, Phadnis Kolhapur. Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur. Pan : Aaaas9803L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur [(‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Commonly Dated 09.08.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All Above Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.2254/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

disallowance u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1,71,51,013/- on account of interest received from Saraswat co-op bank. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. has erred in law and on merit in holding that a Co-op Bank does not fall under the purview of coop society referred to in section

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2254, 2255 & 2277/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur / C/O S.V. Phadnis C.A., Acit, Circle-2, 613, E Ward, Phadnis Kolhapur. Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur. Pan : Aaaas9803L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By Shri M. Jasnani : Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur [(‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Commonly Dated 09.08.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All Above Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.2254/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

disallowance u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1,71,51,013/- on account of interest received from Saraswat co-op bank. 2) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned A.O. has erred in law and on merit in holding that a Co-op Bank does not fall under the purview of coop society referred to in section

SACHIN GOVIND KELKAR,PUNE vs. CIT (A), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance is arbitrary, unjustified, and unwarranted and needs to be deleted. 5. The intimation passed by the Assessing Officer/ CPC does not given the full details of the TDS unmatched and hence the same is bad in law and devoid of any merits. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levy of interest under section 234A

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 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