SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS credit the learned CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for examining the claim of the assessee from the records and allow the tax credit. However, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA was rejected. Against this rejection, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel

DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. MORADABAD ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD., MORADABAD

In the result the appeal of the ld AO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Moradabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Circle-1, Court Road, Moradabad Moradabad Pan: Aaabm0292N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80P(d ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the additional evidence as provided in Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. 8. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)/(Appeal)), Moradabad

M/S. M.NAGAR DISTT. CO-OP DEVELOPMENT FED. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

d) of the Act. The other income is also exempt as the assessee was engaged in activity of purchase of agricultural equipments etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was already before the Assessing Officer as the entries made in the stock register was not at all disputed by the Assessing Officer

MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

d) of the Act. The other income is also exempt as the assessee was engaged in activity of purchase of agricultural equipments etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was already before the Assessing Officer as the entries made in the stock register was not at all disputed by the Assessing Officer

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

d) of the Act. The other income is also exempt as the assessee was engaged in activity of purchase of agricultural equipments etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was already before the Assessing Officer as the entries made in the stock register was not at all disputed by the Assessing Officer

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

d) of the Act. The other income is also exempt as the assessee was engaged in activity of purchase of agricultural equipments etc. The Ld. AR submitted that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was already before the Assessing Officer as the entries made in the stock register was not at all disputed by the Assessing Officer

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in not granting credit of tax of INR 1,92,29,851 withheld by income-tax department on interest on income tax refund. 8. Erroneous computation of tax liability That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Galleria Condominium Vs Ito, Association, Galleria Building, Ward-1(3), Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaaag3018P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rishabh Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Jaishree, Ca Respondent By Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As interest income is disbursed to members who had contributed to it. 4. Further as per verdict of Bangalore Club v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Interest income is not taxable as concept of mutuality has been extended to define groups of people who contribute to a common fund, controlled

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED,BADAYUN vs. ACIT - 2, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Vs. Acit-2, Limited, Moradabad C/O-Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aazfs2514E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

2)(d) on the interest income earned on investments made out of surplus funds made with Cooperative banks, Cooperative Societies and Nationalised banks. 6. The assessee is accordingly held entitled for it’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.18,11,902/- which represents interest from cooperative banks etc. So far as it’s latter claim of section 80P relief

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea. ……………….. ………………. (7) The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant

DIVYA CREATION,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessing Officer has allowed excess deduction as compared to allowable deduction as per Auditor’s Report in form No. 56F and which requires examination. On the issue related to deduction under section 10A on interest income of Rs.66,68,296/- earned on various FDR’s is concerned, the Ld. DR submitted that

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKALL CADRE CO. T&C SOCIIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee i.e. Punjab National Bank All cadre co. thrift and credit Society Ltd (assessee/appellant) against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – 18, New Delhi dated 16th of February 2017 for assessment year 2013 – 14 wherein the appeal filed