AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an\ninstitution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of\nsub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the\ncase may be, and subsequently,—\n(a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence\nof one or more specified

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently,—\n(a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal by observing as under : “6. Decision:- During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant vide its letter dated 12.01.2021stated that it had applied for settlement

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance is called for because of the per se late deposit of the employees’ share beyond the due date under the respective Act and section 43B is of no assistance. 4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

section 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of 2 L B Kunjir

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4 states that the penalty is that in law since the appellant is covered under the exclusions provided u/s 270A(6)(a) of the Act. It is seen that a specific subsection was introduced in section 155, i.e. subsection 18, to specifically deal with the issue of the disallowance

THE MUMBAI OBSTETRIC GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,LOW PAREL (W) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

section 12AB(4) and the specified violation referred\ntherein. He also referred to clause 6.8 of the Indian Medical\nCouncil Regulations 2002 applicable to Pharmaceutical and allied\nHealth sector industries. Ld. PCIT concluded the proceedings by\ncancelling the registration granted u/s.12A(a) of the Act on\n14.12.1982 from A.Y. 2014-15 onwards and also cancelled the\nregistration granted u/s.12A

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

disallowances, the assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) contenting inter alia that the Assessing Officer ought not to have treated the unsecured loans of Rs.13,27,54,925/- as bogus loans, are merely accommodation entries since the interest was paid on such loans after deducting the TDS and the loans were accepted through the mode

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section

ALAKNANDA SAHAKARI GRUHARACHANA SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1393/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2021-22

disallowed the deduction holding that the assessee is a cooperative bank and hence not eligible to claim deduction as ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 8 Alaknanda Sahakari Gruharachana Sanstha Maryadit Vs ITO ITA No.1393/PUN/2024 AY:2021-2022 per Section 80P(4

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

4. ought to have appreciated that the present issue of allowability of deduction under section 80-IA by way of revised return which was allowed vide earlier order under section 143(3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

4. ought to have appreciated that the present issue of allowability of deduction under section 80-IA by way of revised return which was allowed vide earlier order under section 143(3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed