Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Prathamik Shikshak Karmachari ... vs I.T.O. Ward -2, Chandrapur on 6 January, 2017

Primary Teachers Co-Op Bank Sevakanchi ... vs Ito Ward 2, Ahilyanagar on 26 August, 2025

5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is a Cooperative Society but failed to file the return for A.Y. 2018-19. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information about huge cash deposit of Rs.68,78,424/- in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. carried out the proceedings by issuing notice u/s.148A of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee placed various details of the Cooperative Society based on which ld. AO was satisfied with the source of cash deposits which was actually received from the Members of the assessee society. However, ld. AO concluded the re- assessment proceedings denying the benefit of deduction u/s.80P of the Act on the ground that assessee has failed to file 3 ITA No.646/PUN/2025 Primary Teachers Co-Operative Bank Sevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Now under these given facts where the addition has been made on the issue other than the issue on the basis of which reopening proceedings have been carried out, I find Coordinate Bench in the case of Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryaditand Vs. ITO (supra) has dealt with a similar issue and has decided in favour of the assessee placing on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) (2011) 331 ITR 236. Finding of Tribunal reads as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saraswati Mahila Nagari Sahakari ... vs Ito, Ward-2 Ahilyanagar, Ahilyanagar on 26 August, 2025

6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryaditand Vs. ITO in ITA No.171/PUN/2025 order dated, 16.06.2025 submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened on account of reason for source of cash deposits, cash withdrawals and time deposits and interest other than interest on securities and the alleged escapement of income, however, in the re-assessment proceedings concluded u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act ld. AO has only made disallowance u/s.80P of the Act at Rs.12,61,164/- and has not made any addition for unexplained cash deposits/withdrawals/interest.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat ... vs Ito Ward-5, Sangli on 22 September, 2025

The Income Tax Officer Vs. Kolhapur Zilha Madhyamik Shikshan Sevkanchi Sahakari Pat Sanstha, ITA Nos.29 & 30/PUN/2024 iv. Ruby Hall Clinic Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO, ITA No.49/PUN/2024 v. Kundalika Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO, ITA No.576/PUN/2024 Deduction allowed under section 80P(2)(d): i. Annapurna Nagari Sahkari, Pathsanstha Maryadit Yawal Vs. ITO, ITA No.2471/PUN/2024 ii. Shree Vishweswar Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Vs. The Income Tax Officer, ITA No.342/PUN/2024 iii.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti ... vs Pcit-1, Pune, Pune on 9 January, 2026

14. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham reported in (2023) 152 taxmann.com 347 (Kerala), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the precondition to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act had not been fulfilled by the assessee and therefore it was not entitled to benefit of exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. He submitted that it is not a case of one of the two possible views. Further, in this case no view has been taken on this issue which resulted in non-application of correct provision of law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Takshashila Gramin Bigersheti ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri on 30 April, 2026

8. So far as the second issue for denying deduction u/s.80P of the Act is concerned, I observe that amendment u/s.80AC of the Act has been brought in from A.Y. 2018-19 making it mandatory for the Cooperative Societies to file return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act in order to claim deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Now prior to A.Y. 2018-19 in a situation where returns have not been filed but the assessee has carried out the activity of a Cooperative Society, this Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that such deduction deserves to be allowed if the conditions for claiming deduction u/s.80P of the Act are fulfilled. We take note of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rajya Rakhiv Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. ITO (supra) where similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee allowing deduction u/s.80P of the Act and the finding of this Tribunal reads as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next