Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.

Prashasti Enterprises, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh आअसं. 1397/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Prashasti Enterprise, 4, Bhoomi Garden, Mahavir Nagar, Kanidvali (W), Mumbai 400 067. Pan: Aabap-2414-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Mumbai -3, Room No.1901, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mahavir Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

…ecisions, which inter-alia, includes decision in the case of CIT vs. Gundecha Builders, 102 CCH 426 (Bom), CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises, 377 ITR 165 (Bom), CIT vs. Neha Builders, 296 ITR 661(Guj) 4 and K. Subramanian, ITO & Another vs. Siemens India Ltd. 156 ITR 11 concluded that the annual letting value of flats held as stock-in-trade cannot be brought to tax under the head “house property”. While taking such view the Tribunal distinguished the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. (supra). Thus, as per the decision rendered in the case of Osho Developers vs.…

Vaibhavnagar Co-Op Credit Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2694, 2696 & 2697/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vaibhavnagar Co Op Vs. Ito – 27(3)(5) Credit Soc Ltd., Room No. 428, 4Th Ground Floor, Vaibhav Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Nagar Vaman Tukaram Rly Station Complex, Patil Marg, Gowandi Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai – 400088 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaav5519Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Ramesh S Iyer.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

…iety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non- jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by th…

Poonam Chambers Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepoonam Chambers Vs. Nfac, Newdelhi. Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., G/5, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap5497K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Shashank Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac) / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. [1983] 15 Taxman 594/[1985] 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non- jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'b…

Jai Malhar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

…Court had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). We however find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Thus, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon'bl…

Basant Vihar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2539/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Basant Vihar Cooperative बिधम/ Ito-27(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Housing Society Ltd Vs. Vasant Vihar Complex A Vashi Railway Station Building, Ground Floor, Dr. Commercial Complex, C. G. Road Chembur, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074. 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaajb0835E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Venugopal C. Nair Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Co-Operative Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: -

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Basant Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court…

Don Bosco'S Madonna Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2516/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) Don Bosco’S Madonna Co- बिधम/ Cit(E), Mumbai Operative Housing Society Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru, Vs. Ltd Karnataka-560100. Plot No. 167, Flat No. 5, Nathalal Parekh Marg, Wadala, Mumbai-400031. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaad2496C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Bhoir Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Co-Operative Society Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Against The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter “The Act”) On The Interest Income Derived By The Assessee To The Tune Of Rs.2,63,560/- From Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a 6 A.Y. 2020-21 Don Bosco’s Madonna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Hig…

Uti Employees Sai Samrudhi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Unit Income Tax Dept. Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2477/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Uti Employees Sai बिधम/ Centralized Processing Samrudhi Co-Op Housing Unit Income Tax Vs. Society Ltd. Department Bangalore- C/O Uti Amc Ltd. 560500. Uti Tower, Gn Block, Bkc Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts8239K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sachin Lopis Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Appellant/Assessee Uti Employees Sai Samrudhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 25.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Assessee Is A Co-Operative Housing Society, Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Op Society Act 1960. The Society Was Formed By Employees & Nominees Of Unit Trust Of India (Government Entity). The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao Not Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee On The Interest Income U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act

…laim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. Backed by the aforesaid conflicting judicial pronouncements, we may herein observe, that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

Vodafone Idea Ltd (Erstwhile Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd), Mumbai vs. PCIT-Circle 5, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevodafone Idea Limited V. Pcit – Circle 5 {Erstwhile Known As Aditya Birla Telecom Limited} Room No. 515, 5Thfloor Birla Centurion, 10Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 794, B Wing Mumbai - 400020 Pandurang Budhkar Marg Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri J. D. Mistry : Shri Madhur Aggarwal & Shri Ninad Patade Department Represented By : Shri Achal Sharma

…(SC); 10 Vodafone Idea Limited • HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bombay) • Reliance Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com: 238 • Bank of Baroda vs. HCShrivatsava(2002) 175 CTR 663 (Bombay) • K Subramanian vs. Siemens India Ltd. (1983) 36 CTR 197 (Bombay), • Kaira District Co-operative Mik Producers Union Ltd, V/S DCIT (2016) 386 ITR 633 (Gujarat). it is submitted that since the above judgment has been rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court it is binding on this issue. B.2.2 In any case, distribution of shares on capital reduction cannot be considered as'sale' by the Company 51.8…

Pantnagar Ashtvinayak Chsl, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pantnagar Ashtvinayak Chsl Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2)(1) Building No. 244, Samata Colony, Mumbai Vs. Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 075 Pan/Gir No. Aaaap 8034 E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Pantnagar Ashtvinayak CHSL Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(2)(1) Building No. 244, Samata Colony, Mumbai Vs. Pantnagar, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 075 PAN/GIR No. AAAAP 8034 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Bhavya Sundesha Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 01.12 .2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (…

Maitri Heights Co-Op Hsg Society Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

…iety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court’s, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

…ety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible_for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as hield by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid Judicial pronouncement of the Hon"ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

…ety on its investments held with a cooperative bank would be eligible_for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act. We find that as hield by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of K. Subramanian and Anr. Vs. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr (1985) 156 ITR 11 (Bom), where there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court's, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred as against that taken against him. Accordingly, taking support from the aforesaid Judicial pronouncement of the Hon"ble High Court of jurisdiction, we respectfully follow the view taken by the…