DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011-12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011- 12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

THE BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

condoned as the reason given by the delay is genuine. Now we take up the appeal. The assessee is a registered Co-operative Society and the business activities of the society is giving of loans and accepting deposits from the members only and derives income from interest etc. The functioning of the assessee Society is not disputed and the Assessing

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD.,BULANDSHAHR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bulandshahr Vs Dcit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-3(1), 114, Citi Centre, Bulandshahr. Bb Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh – 250001. Pan: Aaaaz0005B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.914/Del/2021 For Ay 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.358717431080118 Dated 31.07.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.12.2017 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-3(1), Bulandshahr (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 4. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of dividend income. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee

ALLIED FINANCE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 1894 days 4068/Del/2024 2. 2108 days 4083/Del/2024 3. 1850 days 4084/Del/2024 4. 2108 days 4085/Del/2024 5. 1851 days 4086/Del/2024 6. 2075 days 4087/Del/2024 7. 1741 days 4088/Del/2024 8. 2377 days 4089/Del/2024 3. Both the learned representatives fairly state during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole

SHREE BANKEY BIHARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below:

2. That the CPC, Bangaluru had processed the return and had issued Intimation dated 14.08.2023 wherein claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act was rejected on the ground that audit report had not been filed before one month from the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. That the Appellant Society

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting

KRISHNA GOPAL SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 28, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting

SEHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED SUAR,RAMPUR vs. ITO , RAMPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.924/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) Sekhari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Village Dhanori, Suar, Rampur, Up 244924 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafts-7805-L

2 filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income as Nil, after claiming deduction of Rs.1,16,59,419/- u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’). During assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of interest income Rs. 12,18,305/- u/s. 80P

ISPAT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 NEW DELHI

Bench: The Next Date Of Hearing.

condonation of delay of 311 days in re-filing the appeal] 2. The appellant is a thrift and credit society. The appellant has been denied deduction under Section 80P

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

condoning the delay in filing of appeal owing to Covid- 19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ petition No. 3/2020 and also by the CBDT Circular 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021. WITHOUT PREHUDICE TO ABOVE (2) That the Authorities below erred on facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-20 vs. M/S CA COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

delay in refiling the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 335/2024 & ITA 336/2024 1. Notice. Since the respondents are duly represented, no further steps need be taken. 2. We take note of the preliminary objection which stands raised with learned counsel for the respondent submitting that the appeal would not be maintainable in light

COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY LTD MORNA,MORNA MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. AO NFAC DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Vs. Assessing Officer, Development Society Ltd., Nfac, Delhi Morna, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaefc0580D (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 | P a g e vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The above delay in filing the assessee’s lower appeal stand condoned. 4. The Revenue’s second vehement contention is that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s section 80P