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

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

X or Y. Thirdly, the gross total income must include income\nthat is referred to in sub-section (2). Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) then speaks of a\nco-operative society being \"engaged in carrying on the business of banking or\nproviding credit facilities to its members. What is important qua sub-clause\n(2

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

X or Y. Thirdly, the gross total income must include income\nthat is referred to in sub-section (2). Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) then speaks of a\nco-operative society being \"engaged in carrying on the business of banking or\nproviding credit facilities to its members. What is important qua sub-clause\n(2

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act\namounting to Rs.3,04,88,392/- treating the same as other income'.\nAccordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,04,88,392/- as\nincome from other sources

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 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

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 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

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 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

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 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

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

56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 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

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

56 of the Act. Assessee filed elaborate submission before the Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Office disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P of Rs.35,43,169/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the Assessment Order relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Totagar’s Cooperative

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

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

56(2)(x) of I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.33,47,987/- without making reference to valuation officer is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 9) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.24,010/- and Rs.5,53,295/- on account of disallowance of travelling expenses is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4 10) The addition made

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. M/S. TATA MOTORS KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Tata Motors Karmachari Ward-8(3), Pune. S. Sahakari Patpedhi, H 5 3Rd Floor, C/O.Tata Motors, Pune City, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aabat7682B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 04.10.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Of The Deduction Of Rs. 6,18,57,845/- Claimed Under Section Bop Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Interest Earned From The Investments

56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the entire deposits accepted from the members was a facility to the members, instead they were put into the cooperative bank as deposits to earn interest, the income of which cannot