VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of IT ACT, 1961, being the principal amount

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”].

disallowance of Rs.11 lakhs made in both the lower proceedings for want of the assessee’s revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. The Revenue quotes section 80A(5) read with section 80C

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]

disallowed the deduction u/s SOP on the basis of section 80AC of income Tax Act 1961. But our case relates to AY 2017-18. And Section 80AC was amended wef 01.04.2018 prospectively. 14. We also keep reliance on the following cases also where deduction under section 80P was allowed even if Return was not filed or filed in response

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

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.75/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Michelle Yohan Poonawalla, The Dy.Cit, Circle-7, Pune. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2Nd Vs Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, . Opp.Niv, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aanpv 5236 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Patel – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walime & Shir Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Dated 31.12.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That - A. In Order To Arrive At Actual Rent As Defined U/Sec.23(1)(D) In Case Of Let Out Property, Expenditure Incurred For Earning Such Rent Shall Be Deducted At Threshold Level Itself. B. Principles Of Real Income Are Ignored While Denying Deduction Of Interest Paid By Appellant For Acquiring Possession Of Property (I.E. Flat No.11, Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai) From Statutory Tenant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Payment Of

disallowance. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No.75/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15 Michelle Y. Poonawalla Vs. DCIT (A) 3. The Ld.AR reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. The Ld.AR filed paper book. The Ld.AR took us through the tenancy relinquishing agreement to establish that the loan was taken for making payment

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

disallowance of deduction of Rs 96,408/- claimed under section 80C by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed

AMIT VINOD BANSAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.86/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amit Vinod Bansal, Priyamit, Plot 142, Sector 27/A, Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pune-411044. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Ahjpb9077E बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward- 9(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-6, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Vi, Has Erred In Law As Well As In Fact In Making The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.9,70,000/- U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Without Prejudice To Ground No.1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Vi, Has Erred In Law As Well As In Fact In Enhancing The Disallowance Made By Ao U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Enhancement Made By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Vi Be Deleted.

80C. As these investments are made out of the income, the same cannot be held to be out of the borrowed funds. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete these investment and rework the disallowance.” 11. Before us, the assessee filed written submissions stating that the investments in PPF account is for claiming benefit of section

MADHAV VINAYAK DHADPHALE,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 149. 8. It is prayed that the entire amount of disallowance of Rs.3,75,500/- be deleted. Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, modify or delete from the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Learned counsel is fair enough in only pressing for the assessee’s foregoing substantive grounds on merits regarding the twin disallowance(s) herein

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

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

80C to 80U. (2)…... (3) ………….. (4) ……….. (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed to him thereunder

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 :

80C to 80U. (2) The aggregate amount of the deductions under this Chapter shall not, in any case, exceed the gross total income of the assessee. (3) …….. (4) …………... (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section ITA No.968/PUN/2023 [A] Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik

VIRENDER MALIK,SAGORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

80C, the amount needs to be restricted to only Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, in Form No.16 only Rs.1,50,000/- was shown as eligible for deduction u/s.80C of the Act. In these facts, we direct ld.Assessing Officer to allow the 5 ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A] Assessee deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,50,000/- which is appearing in Form No.16

VIRENDER MALIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

80C, the amount needs to be restricted to only Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, in Form No.16 only Rs.1,50,000/- was shown as eligible for deduction u/s.80C of the Act. In these facts, we direct ld.Assessing Officer to allow the 5 ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A] Assessee deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,50,000/- which is appearing in Form No.16

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 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.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

80C 150000 80CCD(1B) 50000 80D 50000 4 80TTA 10000 ITA No.2606/PUN/2025 [A] 80DD 75000 80CCD(2) 100000 80DDB 90000 80E 400000 80EEA 150000 80EEB 150000 80GGC 100000 4.2 Out of the above deductions claimed in the Return of Income, for following deductions Assessee could not file any documentary evidence and during the video conference assessee submitted that the claim

MR. GIRISH KISANDAS MEHTA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9 (3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the IT Act. 4 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC raising only grounds on merits. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above ex-parte order passed

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

80C of the Act of Rs.1,50,000/- being interest paid for self occupied property was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted from the bank statement of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kharadi Branch, Pune that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.113,23,000/- during the relevant assessment year. He therefore, asked