State Bank Of India v. CIT

Technopolis Premises Co-Op.Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 25, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodtechnopolis Premises Co-Operative Society Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, Limited, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Room No. 241, 2Nd Floor, G-Block, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai 400 093. Mumbai – 400 051

…7. Also, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enac…

Vadasinor Pragati Samaj Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Vadasinor Pragati Samaj Principal Commissioner Of Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Income Tax – 18 45/49, 1St Floor, Babu Genu Road, Vs. Mumbai. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aaaav6905G Appellant Respondent

…n Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd.(supra) the decision was rendered by making reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka in PCIT & Anr vs. Totagars Coperative Sale Society (392 ITR 74) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in SBI vs. CIT (389 ITR 578 (Guj.) also held that interest income earned by assessee on investment held that a Co-operative Bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d). 13. Considering the aforesaid legal preposition, we are of the view that assessee is entitled for deduction on interest earned from Co-operative Bank which are primarily a Co-ope…

Solitaire Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. C-10, 4Th Floor, Pratykshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Solitaire Chs Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Society Office, Solitaire Chs Ltd. Income-Tax -26 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, C-10, 4Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai – 400 076 Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aagfs7920R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-sectio…

Shree Malgangadevi Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax 29, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doub…

Ansa Ab Industrial Premises Co-Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of dou…

Jiwan Satya Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doub…

Jiwan Satya Co-Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doub…

Amit Tata Employees Co-Operative Hsg. Soc.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleamit Tata Employees Co-Operative V. Assistant Commissioner Of Housing Society Limited Income Tax – 21(1) 1 Amit Tata Employees Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aaaja 0103 A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishwas V Mehendale

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doub…

Shubham Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is dismissed and appeal for the AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Income Tax Officer- Patsanstha Maryadit, 29(3)(4), 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai Bkc, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aagts9805F Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Pr. Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax-29, 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing C-10, 3Rd Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai Pan:Aagts9805F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of dou…

Shubham Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is dismissed and appeal for the AY 2014-15 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Income Tax Officer- Patsanstha Maryadit, 29(3)(4), 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai Bkc, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aagts9805F Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shubham Nagri Sahakari The Pr. Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax-29, 997, 2/2, Aadarsh Housing C-10, 3Rd Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Society, Parksite, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai Pan:Aagts9805F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2019

…We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of State Bank of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had also held that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments held with a co- operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, also makes it clear beyond any scope of dou…