INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

801, & 802/PUN/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard - 1, Jalna\nVs.\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nThe Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,\nRajuri Ves, Beed – 431122,\nMaharashtra\nPAN : AAAAT5256C\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nAssessee by :\nDepartment by :\nDate of hearing :\nDate of\nPronouncement :\nShri Shubham N. Rathi\nShri Amol Khairnar

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

801, & 802/PUN/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard - 1, Jalna\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nThe Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,\nRajuri Ves, Beed – 431122,\nVs. Maharashtra\nPAN : AAAAT5256C\nAssessee by :\nDepartment by :\nDate of hearing :\nDate of\nPronouncement :\nShri Shubham N. Rathi\nShri Amol Khairnar\n02-12-2024\n21-02-2025\nप्रत्यर्थी

JOHN DEERE FINANCIAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

801/- by disallowing an amount of Rs.10,55,83,490/- on account of bad debts. 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the CPC without prior intimation made the disallowance which is not correct. It was further submitted that the assessee has incurred bad debts of Rs.13,64,59,443/- which was disclosed by giving details

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,, PUNE

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,, PUNE

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,, PUNE

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,, PUNE

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly uphold the CIT(A) foregoing directions granting proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. These Revenue’s cross appeals in ITA No.1684 to 1687/PUN/2...

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dipak Pandurang Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.1679 To 1682/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S. Namrata Developers Flora The Deputy Commissioner Of City, Vs Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), 592, Ravivar Peth, Talegaon- Pune. Dabhade, Taluka Maval, Pune – 410 506. Pan: Aaaan 4708 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowing the assessee’s 80IB(10) deduction claim to this effect. 8. Mr.Jain does not press for assessee’s legal ground(s) challenging validity of section 153C proceedings in these appeals. Rejected accordingly. The assessee’s instant four appeals ITA No’s.1679 to 1682/PUN/2016 fail in above terms. 9. This leaves us with Revenue’s four cross appeals ITA No.1684

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowance, that the appellant is in appeal before me. 5. In Ground No. 1, the appellant has alleged that the AO has erred in rejecting the claim made by the appellant u/s. 80IA(4) during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant filed written submissions in DAK on 24/10/2017, in which it has been admitted that the claim was inadvertently

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

801 (SC), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,62,84,153/- to the total income of the assessee by observing as under: “9….. The explanation of the assessee has been considered but the same is found not acceptable. The assessee-company is trying to state that Pranav International Ltd., Dubai advanced to the assessee-company at Rs.2

SANKET INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sanket Industries Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aafcs6118M Appellant Respondent

801/- under section 68 of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.25,60,000/- u/s 68 received from Ketan Vinodkumar Shah. 17.1 As regards Disallowance

JAYSHREE ASHOK CHOURE,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

disallowing her Section 10(38) exemption claim to the tune of Rs.10,27,825/- alleged to have been derived from sale of equity shares in the course of assessment dated 22-12-2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. 2 Jayshree A. Choure 3. I notice with the able assistance coming from the revenue’s side that

RAJARAMBAPU PATIL SSK LTD, ,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajarambapu Patil Ssk Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sakharale, Islampur, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Sangli. Dist. Sangli – 415 414. Pan: Aaaar 0790 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Prasanna L Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg - Dr Date Of Hearing 07/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 16.05.2017For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed The Judgement Of Itat, Mumbai Dated 16/5/1968 In Pravara Ssk In Ita No. 10939-42 Upheld By Hon’Ble Supreme Court, 94 Itr 321, Which Was Accepted By It Dept, For Over 3 Decades & As Held By Supreme Court In Radhasoami Satsang, 193 Itr 321, It Would Not Be Appropriate To Allow The Position To Be Changed In A Subsequent Year, As Re- Confirmed By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Municipal Corp. Of Thane V. Vidyut Metalics (2007) 8 Scc 688. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Held That It Is Government’S Policy To Encourage Co-Operatives & Appellant’S Business Which Is Run On Co- Operative Principles & Policy & Has Its Aims & Objects That Are

section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed Rs.122,58,52,647/-. 3.1 The AO also observed that assessee has sold 7278 quintals of sugar to its members at a concessional rate of Rs.102.15 per quintal, as against the average rate of Rs.2577.13 per quintal at which sugar was sold in the market. Therefore, the AO disallowed

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

801) (SC), Chuhar Mal Vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 and McDowell Vs. CTO. The case laws relied upon by the appellant cannot be applied in the present case as the appellant has failed to prove the test of human probabilities and failed to establish the circumstantial evidence to prove the transaction is not on manipulative basis. 10.5. Further