PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

2)(d) of the Act was denied on the basis of exclusion by section u/s 80P(4) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 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.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as business income. Moreover, the same shall be added as income from the other sources u/s. 56 of the Act for the Act. In view of the above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) by the AO though she has not recorded her satisfaction as to which specific default in respect which the penalty is levied by her, there by rendering her order of levying the penalty

AMAN CHHOTE VYAPARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,ICHALKRANJI vs. आयकर अधिकारी, वार्ड - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.142 To 144/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Aman Chhote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanshta Maryadit, Gala No.61, 62 & 63, Weekly Market, Ichalkaranji. Pan: Aabta0044M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Ichalkaranji ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) by the AO though she has not recorded her satisfaction as to which specific default in respect which the penalty is levied by her, there by rendering her order of levying the penalty

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), which falls only under the second limb, namely, “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident from notice u/s 274 read with section 271

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), which falls only under the second limb, namely, “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident from notice u/s 274 read with section 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSITE GURANTEE CORP.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), which falls only under the second limb, namely, “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident from notice u/s 274 read with section 271

BAPUJIBUWA NAGARI SAH PAT SANSTHA LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.946/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Bapujibuwa Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.10/2, Dagadu Patil Nagar, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Pan : Aaaab8597J. बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Range – 9, Pune.

2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty amounting to ₹67,52,000/- levied by the AO under section 271D of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a co- operative society and is engaged in the activity of providing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE,, RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

80P at Rs.7,71,47,195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

80P at Rs.7,71,47,195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

80P at Rs.7,71,47,195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

80P at Rs.7,71,47,195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

80P at Rs.7,71,47,195/- and after making additions on account of following two items: (i) Wrong provision for overdue interest at Rs.13,23,80,669/- (ii) Wrong deductions claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) at Rs.2,17,36,000/- Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before

SHRI. DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, KOLHAPUR

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK KAGAL TALUKA SAH. SAKHAR KARKHAN LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Tal. Vs. Acit, Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Circle-1, Sushant S. Phadnis C.A., 613 E Kolhapur Ward, Phadnis Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur – 416003 Pan : Aaaak1300Q Appellant Respondent

u/s. 80P (2) (a) (iii) when the issue was fully, covered in the assesses favour by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Budhewal Co.op. Sugar Mills Ltd. as reported in 315 ITR 351. 6) On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on merit