MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

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

u/s 80(P)(2)(d) and specifically under S 80(P)(2)(a) (i) of the IT Act. That Sec 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable for the simple reason that the surplus funds have not been utilized in the ordinary course of business of assessee. !t is not the business of the assessee to deposit

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharadchandra Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-10(1), Pune. At Post–Rajuri, Taluka–Junnar, Dist. Pune – 412411. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaabs1016L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

80P despite compliance with relevant provisions and the Id. CIT A erred in confirming the same. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in taxing interest of Rs. 65,61,102/- earned by assessee from coop banks as income from other source u/s 56 and the Id. CIT A erred in confirming the said treatment of AO. 4. The assessee prays

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).

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 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the lower authorities have erred

CHAKAN GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.14/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chakan Gramin Bigarsheti Ito Ward 8(3), Pune Sahkari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Vs. Oppo. Chakan Market Yard, Chakan, Khed, Pune-410501 Maharashtra Pan-Aaatc4916H अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Pramod Shingte Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 07-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21-08-2025 आदीश / Order

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2024 framed by Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Offer erred in rejecting deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for a sum of Re: 1,17,61,110/- being