DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

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

46 of the said order is reproduced below:\n\"45. To sum up, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd.\n(supra), must be given effect to. Section 80P of the IT Act, being a benevolent\nprovision enacted by Parliament to encourage and promote the credit of the co-\noperative sector in general must be read liberally

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

46,096/- is nothing but mis-utilization of the trust funds/income for the benefit of the interested persons, i.e. Mr. Vikram Chavan, Managing Trustee and Ms. Pratima Chavan, Trustee Secretary and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) 23 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi upheld the disallowance of exemption u/s.11 invoking the provisions of section 13(2

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

2(47) of the IT Act are satisfied in the present case and therefore it is held that 'transfer' has indeed taken place within the meaning of this provision. The argument that there was some dispute with a third party is of no relevance as because it did not hamper the transfer itself and even the construction was in progress

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.64683703/- made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') since, the dividend and interest on bonds, share of profit from firms are the sources

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42,44,147,64 & 170 5 2020-21 43.41 Cr. 43.41 Cr. 6,10,72 & 73 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has argued that the subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) (2007) (Mega Project) is taxable as income

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

46,114/- Sports activity 45,83,070/- expenses Employment 20,81,654/- Membership 60,38,360/- fees Sports 34,82,295/- Income from 30,18,475/- Expenses investment Income from 40,17,946/- restaurant & bar Income from 44,95,077/- other sources Entrance fee 1,61,50,000/- Total 2,41,10,063/- Total 3,83,02,928/- The assessee

M/S. MUNOTH TRANSPORT CO.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.990/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Munoth Transport Co., Darshan Apartment, V.K. High School Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Raigad – 410206 …. Pan: Aacfm1055D Vs.

46,000/- was disallowed. Similarly, plot rent expenses were restricted to 50% i.e. ₹ 3,60,000/-, which was allowed in the hands of assessee and balance claim of ₹ 3,60,000/- was disallowed. 6. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 68 of the Act and also disallowance of expenses made by invoking provisions of section 40A(2

PUNE ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2194 & 2195/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh V Dcit, Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, S. Circle-5, Pune. Katraj Dairy, Pune Satara Road, Katraj, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaaap0836A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.R.Bhagwat Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 19.12.2019 & 19.01.2021 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided In A

46,90,994/- is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Assessing Officer held that PDCC Bank is not a Co-operative Society, hence, Assessee is not eligible for 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order. 4. Ld.CIT

PUNE ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2194 & 2195/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh V Dcit, Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, S. Circle-5, Pune. Katraj Dairy, Pune Satara Road, Katraj, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaaap0836A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.R.Bhagwat Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 19.12.2019 & 19.01.2021 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided In A

46,90,994/- is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Assessing Officer held that PDCC Bank is not a Co-operative Society, hence, Assessee is not eligible for 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order. 4. Ld.CIT

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as\nthe issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the\nissue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the\nissue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that\nld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the\nassessee from the Govt. of Maharashtra for Mega Projects\nunder PSI, 2007 vide Industrial Energy and Labour\ndepartment Resolution No.PSI-1707/(CR-50) IND-8, dated\n30.03.2007

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2. confirming disallowance of Rs.17,817/- being contribution to Group Gratuity Scheme.” 4. Assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is legal in nature, and the same is extracted here as under : “Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that disallowance u/s.14A made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2. confirming disallowance of Rs.17,817/- being contribution to Group Gratuity Scheme.” 4. Assessee has also raised an additional ground, which is legal in nature, and the same is extracted here as under : “Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that disallowance u/s.14A made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s