SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PANDHARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR , PANDHARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) relying on Section 80A(5) of the Act. Assessing Officer assessed the total

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

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

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions

SHRI LAXMI V K S (VIKAS) SEVA SANSTHA MARYADIT BASARGE BK,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.489/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Laxmi Vks (Vikas) Vs. Ito, Assessment Unit, Seva Sanstha Maryadi Income Tax Department. Basarge Bk, At Basarge, Tal. Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur- 416506. Pan : Aakas3603C Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 10,25,886/- u/s 80P(2)(a) and Rs.14,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c) on the ground that the assessee had not made the claim in the return of income and hence, in view of provisions of section 80A

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].

2) the jurisdiction to 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

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

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).

2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, however the assessee has not furnished return of income, therefore, in the light of section 80A(5) of the IT Act, the assessee is not entitled for any deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act. Ld. AO was satisfied with the details filed about the source of cash deposit but denied the deduction

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

2 Act and therefore, the impugned order, being non-speaking and devoid of proper reasoning, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order by Ld. AO passed under section 144 of the Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction and invalid

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

2) of section 288; (ii) "specified date", in relation to the accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to an assessment year, means the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. The turnover of the assessee is below the specified limit. As such the specified due date for the assessee

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

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

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

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

disallowed by the appellant in computing income from business as per the Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the IT Act. The learned AO/ DRP failed to appreciate that the deduction u/'s 80G falling in Chapter VIA has been claimed by the appellant in respect of the amount donated voluntarily to the donee out of its own volition

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.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,79,33,187/- made by the AO, ignoring the fact that, there were insignificant delays due to technical glitches in remitting Employees’ contribution to PF, ESIC & the entire contributions were either paid during the year or before the time allowed u/s.139(1) of filing the income

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.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,79,33,187/- made by the AO, ignoring the fact that, there were insignificant delays due to technical glitches in remitting Employees’ contribution to PF, ESIC & the entire contributions were either paid during the year or before the time allowed u/s.139(1) of filing the income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed by the Assessing 13 Officer invoking the provisions of section 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 19. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record establishing any arrangement between the assessee company and its AEs resulting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowed by the Assessing 13 Officer invoking the provisions of section 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA(10) of the Act. 19. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record establishing any arrangement between the assessee company and its AEs resulting

KASMA PRATHMIK SHISHAK SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,LAKMAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1744/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kasma Prathmik Shishak Sahakari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit Ward 2, Malegaon Lakhmapur, Lakhampur S.O, Nashik - 423213, Maharashtra Pan: Aabak3942M Appellant Respondent

2 Kasma Prathmik Shishak Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit declaring income of Rs.24,000/- and again revised the return on 07.03.2018. Ld. AO observed that assessee has not e- verified the return and therefore the return is invalid. Ld. AO after examining the records has accepted the source of cash deposit of Rs.5,31,740/- but for not filing the income