VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section 251 was confined to the matter which had been considered by the ITO and the AAC exceeded his jurisdiction in making an addition of Rs. 2,30,000 on the basis of the other 10 items of hundis which had not been explained by the assessee. This means that even if question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section 251 was confined to the matter which had been considered by the ITO and the AAC exceeded his jurisdiction in making an addition of Rs. 2,30,000 on the basis of the other 10 items of hundis which had not been explained by the assessee. This means that even if question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative

AURANGABAD DIVISION LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,AURANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3175/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aurangabad Divison Life V The Income Tax Officer, Insurance Employees Co-Op S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Credit Society Ltd., 11, Jeevan Prakash, Lic Office Building Adalat Road, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad -431005 Pan: Aaaaa2245A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Payal Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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 The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 24.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

disallowed by Assessing Officer. 3 ITA No.3175/PUN/2025 [A] 3.1 Thus, the issue before us is whether Assessee Co-operative Credit Society is eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, on the Interest Income earned from depositing excess funds. 3.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Co- operative Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SATARA, SATARA vs. KARAD PATAN TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITEDTY , KARAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2289/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, V Karad Patan Taluka Prathmik Ward-1, Satara. S Shikshak Sahakari Society Limited, 190 B Shaniwar Peth, Opp.Shivneri Lodge, Karad, Satara – 415110 Pan: Aaaak0559R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Satish U Nade Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 4.5 to 6 of Assessment Order are reproduced here as under : 3 ITA No.2289/PUN/2025 [A] “4.5.) Further, it may be noted that the assessee for the year under consideration has claimed the deduction U's 80P of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHAMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARIPATSANSTHA MARYADIT, , MALDAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

251 ITR 194 (SC) observed as under : Quote,“The question in appeal reads : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income arising from the investment made out of reserve fund is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI, MALDAD SANGAMNER

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

251 ITR 194 (SC) observed as under : Quote,“The question in appeal reads : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income arising from the investment made out of reserve fund is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

251 ITR 522.”\n10.2 Similarly, the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.\n(supra) considered the question; “ii] Whether on the fact and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned ITAT was justified in holding that the\nassessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2

OM J J SWA VISHWASHANTI DHAM NIRMAN SANSTHA,VERUL vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

disallowing the\nclaim for exemption under section 11 of the Act, even though the\nappellant was a registered charitable institution under section 12AA of\nthe Act and had duly applied the income towards its charitable\nobjectives.\nCapital Nature of Donations - Not Taxable:\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without\nprejudice to any other ground

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

disallowance of index cost of acquisition is bad in law and therefore deserves to be allowed.” 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSV Act, 2020”) has been rejected by the Income Tax Department. Admittedly, there was a lapse on the part of the assessee to inform

ANUJ UMESH GOEL,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1632/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

2)(i) over and above the disallowance made in the assessment order without providing a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as prescribed u/s 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance of Rs.6,020/- under section

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for 12 Serum Institute

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for 12 Serum Institute

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for 12 Serum Institute

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for 12 Serum Institute

PINNAC PARIJAAT CO.OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(2), 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.531/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pinnac Parijaat Co. Op. V The Income Tax Officer, Housing Society Limited, S Ward-2(2), Pune. S.No.35, Hissa No.1,3,4,5,11,12, Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aadap9430D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)/[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On 24.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 3,13,990/-Instead Of 1,01,830/-

disallowing assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Assessee claimed that since no specific reason was mentioned in the order under section 143(1) for ITA No.531/PUN/2025 [A] denying the claim of Assessee for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, assessee filed a rectification application under section

THE SANGLI SALARY EARNERS CO OP SOCIETY LTD,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

disallowed assessee’s claim. 5. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the Assessment Order. 5.1 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5.2 It is observed from the order of ld.CIT(A) that Assessee has earned an interest income of Rs.3,71,88,591/- from deposits kept with Co-operative Banks

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by the CPC due to the reason that the assessee has not e-filed the audit report in Form 10B one month prior to the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. In this regard, it was further submitted by the ld. AR that it is true that Form 10B could

SHRI GANESH RAMCHANDRA MORE,PANVEL vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

disallowing the benefit of Cost of Acquisition/Indexed Cost of Acquisition for determining the income from capital gains ignoring and without appreciating the facts that for computation of capital gains within the provisions of section 45 to 48 of the I T Act, 1961, the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of Cost of Acquisition/Indexed Cost of Acquisition for this

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

disallowance made by Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged mainly in distributorship of recharges. He referred to the amended definition of section 9(1)(via) of the Act and also Explanation 2(iva) and pointed