BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

56,31,309/- under the normal provisions and determined the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.6911,69,43,041/-. 4. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the records and observed that the said book profit under the provisions of section 115JB was rectified by the Assessing Officer to Rs.2404,02,51,679/- vide order dated 08.06.2021 under section

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 56(2)(viia) in the assessee's case does not arise. It may be applicable in the case of Tapti. Hence, no purpose would be served by setting aside the asst. of the assessee. 2.5] Accordingly, the assessee submits that his case is totally genuine and the capital loss on sale of Shivalik shares should be allowed

KRISHNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

2. That as per the grounds of appeal, the main grievance of the assessee is two-fold: first confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,56,07,610/- on account of bad and doubtful debts and second confirmation of disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs towards provision for standard assets. That with regard to the facts involving bad and doubtful debts, during assessment proceedings

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

CIL EMPLOYEES CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION, WARD-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1600/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cil Employees’ Co Op Credit V Exemption, Society Limited, S Ward-1(2), Pune. Cummins Inida Ltd., Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan:Aabac8908M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This 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 A.Y.2020-21 Dated 29.02.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated 28.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

viia) of the I.T. Act and considering the facts and circumstance of the case assessee it is held 4 that assessee is not eligible for deduction either u/s 80P(2)(b) or u/s ITA No.1600/PUN/2025 [A] 80P92)(b). In view of the provision of section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(b) of Rs.4

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

Disallowance of provision for Standard assets (Para 2. 12,48,358/- 5.2) 3. Undisclosed Interest on FDRs from UCO Bank 33,840/- Total 19,56,005/- 3. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins the first year of operation of the Explanation, very less clarity was available on its applicability. 49. The claim of the assessee has been denied by the lower authorities solely based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

THE NASHIK ROAD DEOLALI VYAPARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

viia) of the Act vide its order dated 18-03-2014. The CIT(A) has given partial relief with regard to the additions made by the AO and amongst which aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. We note that the ground Nos. 1 and 4 are interlinked, we proceed to hear both the grounds together for the sake

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 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(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 36(l)(via)(d) of the Act while making an addition. 5. The Appellant prays that in the interest of justice the additional evidences may be admitted and the issue may be decided after considering the additional evidences. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. PUNE CANTONMENT SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

viia) was withdrawn and the total income was determined at Rs.15,81,901/-. Thereafter, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter re-assessment was framed vide order dt.05.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,49,20,300/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT

MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, penalty appeal is allowed and quantum appeal is

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2. In so far as the quantum appeal is concerned, it is noticed that the assessee is engaged in banking business. Return for the year under consideration was filed declaring total income at NIL, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs.122,56,95,246/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed

MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, penalty appeal is allowed and quantum appeal is

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2. In so far as the quantum appeal is concerned, it is noticed that the assessee is engaged in banking business. Return for the year under consideration was filed declaring total income at NIL, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs.122,56,95,246/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed