THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

68,870/- and interest income of Rs.1,35,06,370/-. But as per Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, dividend income and fixed deposit interest are required to be disallowed and, therefore, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response

ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), VEJALPUR vs. AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

68,870/- and interest income of Rs.1,35,06,370/-. But as per Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, dividend income and fixed deposit interest are required to be disallowed and, therefore, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act was initiated and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80P(2)(a)(i) be deleted. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts without appreciating the circumstances of the case and in Law in holding that cash deposits of Rs.1,15,97,500/- in the bank account during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Mehsana Ward-5 The Gozaria Peoples Co-Operative Kadi. Vs Credit Society Ltd. 2, Main Bazar At Gozariya Ta. Mehsana 383 825 Gujarat. Pan : Aaajt 1283 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 80P(2)(d). 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.15,14,46,954/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of current liabilities reflected

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

2) of the Act. The assessee is a cooperative society providing certain services to its members, such as, supply of milk, ghee, kapas etc. No return of income was filed by the assessee either under section 139(1) or even belatedly in terms of section 139(4) of the Act. It was only subsequently through a letter dated

ITO WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, SEC. FLOOR BANK HOUSE, NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE,PETLAD vs. SHRI SHIVOHAM SAGAR CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., KANTHARIA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.556/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 The Income Tax Officer Shri Shivoham Sagar Co-Op. बनाम/ Ward-1(3)(1) Credit Society Ltd. Petlad 388 450 Kantharia, V/S. (Gujarat) At Po Kantharia – 388 307 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 9119 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Umang N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

VI-A (under section 80P) amounting Rs. 9,57,108/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. 2.1. The AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80P relating to interest from Nationalized Banks. Therefore, he disallowed the deduction

THE THASRA NAGRIK CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,THASRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 NADIAD, NADIAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2015-16

80P(2)(a)(i) of the act, has erred and not justified (5) Allowance of expense incurred for earning such income : Without prejudice to above grounds, even while passing order AO has erred, by not allowing expense incurred for earning such income in view of section 57(iii) of the Act. (6) Assessee crave the leave for addition, alteration

MUNCIPAL SERVANT CO. OP CREDIT AND SUPPLY SOC. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

VI-A of the Act (including section 80 P of the Act) in case the return of income has not been filed within the due date specified under section 139 (1) of the Act. Since, in the instant set case, the return was filed beyond the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee

MUNCIPAL SERVANT CO. OP CREDIT AND SUPPLY SOC. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC , BENGLURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

VI-A of the Act (including section 80 P of the Act) in case the return of income has not been filed within the due date specified under section 139 (1) of the Act. Since, in the instant set case, the return was filed beyond the date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68. 8. In Para- 9 of your notice, Your honour have mentioned that no copy of agreement was furnished for booking of plots and therefore why the claim of expenses of Rs.36,75,000/-should not be disallowed. In this respect I have to submit that in real estate transaction while booking the plot, no agreement is required