INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

disallowed the claim of the assessee on this ground also. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal). The Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 04/10/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is as under : 5.2. The various

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 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 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

80A (5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. The said section cannot be evoked for denying the deduction u/s 80Peven if ITR is nor filed. 3. Also, Section 80AC was amended wef 01.04.2018 prospectively. Before 31.03.2018 Section 80AC was applicable to any deduction is admissible under section 80-lA or section 80-1AB or section

SINDHUDURG ZILLA MADHYAMIK VA UCHHA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK VA SHIKSHKETAR KARMACHARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SINDHUDURGNAGARI KUDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER KUDAL, KUDAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.968/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va The Income Tax Officer, Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va V Kudal. Shikshketar Karmachari S Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.33, Sindhudurgnagari, Kudal Dist, Sindhudurg. Maharashtra – 416812. Pan: Aagas6518L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak, Irs – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2024 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 30.08.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 21.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 80A(5)of the Act , the Assessee has to claim the deduction in the return of income and if it is not claimed then the assessee will not be eligible for the deduction. In this case the Assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act in the Original return of Income of Income filed

SHRI SANT SENA MAHARAJ NABHIK SAMAJACHI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 841/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Behind Shani Mandir, Radhabai Chal, Chalisgaon – 424 101 Pan: Aabas8462N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer- 1(4), Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Shri R Y Balawade [‚Ld. Dr] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Nfsc/S/250/2023- 24/1052715471(1) Dt. 10/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter].

disallow 80P deduction in summary assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act for impugned AY. 5. Let us deal with first issue first, i.e. Eligibility of the appellant for claim of deduction u/s 80P of VI-A of the Act; 5.1 It goes without saying that, by virtue of section 80A

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. We note with the able assistance of from revenue side that legislature has not only prescribed filing of a return within the “due date” prescribed u/s. 139(1) as a pre condition for claiming section 80IA by way of inserting a special provision i.e. 80AC vide Finance Act 2007 w.e.f. 2008 but also Section 80A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

80A. It was not intended to deny legitimate deduction to which the assessee is otherwise legally entitled to. CIRCULAR NO. 5/2010/(F.NO.142/13/2010-SO(TPL)], DATED 3-6-2010 F. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income – Revised return - Assessment year 2005-06 - For relevant year, assessee filed return under section 139(1) declaring certain taxable income

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance of claim of Rs.16,72,077/- u/s 80P(2)(a) (i)/ 80(2)(d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance of claim of Rs.16,72,077/- u/s 80P(2)(a) (i)/ 80(2)(d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

80A of the Act. II. Disallowance under section 41(1) of the Act 3. The learned AO erred adding back

RAJYA RAKHIV POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 14(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowed the deduction u/s.80P of the Act by applying section 80A(5) of the Act. Under these given facts, judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee wherein it was held that “if after issuing a notice under section 148, he (AO) accepted the contention

K GODAJI ABHANG PATIL NAGRI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SANGAMNER vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1573/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 K Godaji Abhang Patil Vs Ito, Ward 2, Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Ahmednagar Maryadit, New Akole Bypass Road, Opp. Telephone Exchange, Sangamner-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaabk0444N Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by Ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) brought no relief. 4 7. I observe that section 80AC of the Act has been subject to the amendment from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards post which for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act it is mandatory for the assessee to file return of income u/s 139(1

SAI SERVICE AGENCY(B0MBAY) P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.490/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sai Service Agency (Bombay) The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mumbai Pune Road, . Phugewadi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs 5991 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune- 8’S Order Dated 05.08.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Dcitc Cir-1(2)/202/18-19/188, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

1) is allowable expenditure and therefore, the addition is directed to be deleted. ITA No.490/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 Sai Service Agency(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., (A) 6. Ms.Khare does not press for the assessee’s second substantive ground challenging section 14A r.w.rule 8D disallowance of Rs.51,356/- keeping in mind smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly. 7. Next comes section 80G disallowance

BAGLAN PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

1) of the IT Act requiring the assessee to file the return for assessment year 2017-18. The secretary of the assessee society appeared in person and filed reply from time to time before the Assessing Officer. The 3 Assessing Officer found that the objectives and activities of the assessee attracts the provisions of section

PRABHAT GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATNSANSTHA MARYADIT TADWADI,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL

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

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

80A(5) and 80AC(ii) of the Act. (ii) The scope of section 143(3) is wide enough to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act at the time of completing the assessment and it is not an adjustment contemplated u/s 143(1

SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

1% of Annual Average of Monthly average of investment on which exempt income was earned. Therefore, we agree with the disallowance of Rs.48,55,402/-made u/s.14A read with rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance is upheld. 12.1 Accordingly, the Ground No.3 is dismissed. Sai Service Private Limited for A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Ground No.4 : 13. The assessee had claimed deduction

SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

1% of Annual Average of Monthly average of investment on which exempt income was earned. Therefore, we agree with the disallowance of Rs.48,55,402/-made u/s.14A read with rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance is upheld. 12.1 Accordingly, the Ground No.3 is dismissed. Sai Service Private Limited for A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Ground No.4 : 13. The assessee had claimed deduction

LUNAWAT COMPLEX PHASE 2 SAHAKARI GRUHARACHANA SANSTHA MARYA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

80A(5) and Section 80AC of the Income Tax . Conjoint reading of these two sections makes it clear that Assessee has to file Return of Income before the due date mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act and Assessee has to claim the deduction in the Return of Income. 6.1 In the case of the Assessee the Assessee

VIJAYSINGH J JADHAVRAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

disallowing the assessee’s Section 80IB(10) deduction in principle. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent decision in (2019) 107 taxmann.com 220 (Bom) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India has also decided the instant issue against the assessee and in department’s favour that no deduction under Chapter VI-C is admissible in absence of a Section 139(1