MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1708/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Muzaffarnagar District Cooperative Vs Dcit, Bank Ltd., C/O Anil Deep & Company, Circle-1, 41/85, Sadar Bazar, Muzaffarnagar, Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh-251001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaam4327P Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar Dated 16.01.2018 In Case No. 9258-7434-250-717, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

2(c) of the BR Act, 1949 on obtaining licence under Section 22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex co-operative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 5(b) read with Section

ITO, WARD-58(7), NEW DELHI vs. THE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Ito, Ward-58(7), The Co-Operative Urban Thrift New Delhi & Credit Society Ltd., 31/64, Vs. Bhikam Singh Colony, (Pan:Aabat2253J) Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara Delhi-1100 32

Section 80P(2)(a) and (b). Therefore, we sustain disallowance of Rs.37,712. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80P(2)(d) of the Act and, therefore, has to be disallowed under Section 14A. 5. The assessee succeeded in the first appeal and before the tribunal. We may notice that in the first appeal, the assessee had raised several contentions on merits as to the quantum of disallowance of the expenditure under the head “interest” and had pointed

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

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

b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders granting approval and sanction of schemes only on 22-4-2018 and 1-5-2018, hence, it was an impossibility for assessee companies

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MODI NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

B' NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.4068/Del/2024\n Assessment Year: 2015-16\n\n| Cane Vs. | Income Tax Officer,\nCo-operative\nDevelopment Union Ltd.,\nCane Union, Hapur,\nUttar Pradesh\n\nWard-1(2),\nGhaziabad\n\nPAN: AAAJC0224M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nWith\nITA No.4083/Del/2024

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MODI NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

B' NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.4068/Del/2024\n Assessment Year: 2015-16\n\nCo-operative\nDevelopment Union Ltd.,\nCane Union, Hapur,\nUttar Pradesh\nPAN: AAAJC0224M\n(Appellant)\n\nCane Vs. Income Tax Officer,\nWard-1(2),\nGhaziabad\n(Respondent)\n\nWith\nITA No.4083/Del/2024\n Assessment Year

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MODI NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

B’ NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.4068/Del/2024\n Assessment Year: 2015-16\n\nCo-operative\nDevelopment Union Ltd.,\nCane Union, Hapur,\nUttar Pradesh\nPAN: AAAJC0224M\n(Appellant)\n\nCane\nVs.\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1(2),\nGhaziabad\n(Respondent)\n\nWith\nITA No.4083/Del/2024\n Assessment Year

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), HAPUR

B' NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.4068/Del/2024\n Assessment Year: 2015-16\n\n| Cane\n| Vs. |\n| Income Tax Officer,\nWard-1(2),\nGhaziabad\nCo-operative\nDevelopment Union Ltd.,\nCane Union, Hapur,\nUttar Pradesh\n\nPAN: AAAJC0224M\n(Appellant)\n| (Respondent)\n\nWith\nITA No.4083/Del/2024

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MODI NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

B' NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.4068/Del/2024\n Assessment Year: 2015-16\n\nCane Vs. Income Tax Officer,\n\nCo-operative\nDevelopment Union Ltd.,\nCane Union, Hapur,\nUttar Pradesh\nWard-1(2),\nGhaziabad\n\nPAN: AAAJC0224M\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\n\nWith\nITA No.4083/Del/2024\n Assessment Year

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

disallowance u/s 80 JJAA of the Act is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. Further, he reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of clarity the Brief Synopsis is reproduced herein below: “BRIEF SYNOPSIS

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

disallowance u/s 80 JJAA of the Act is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact in right perspective. Further, he reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of clarity the Brief Synopsis is reproduced herein below: “BRIEF SYNOPSIS

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking to which Section 10A applies is not included in the total income of the Assessee. Section 10A(2

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking to which Section 10A applies is not included in the total income of the Assessee. Section 10A(2

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking to which Section 10A applies is not included in the total income of the Assessee. Section 10A(2

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

b) assembling, or (c) recording of programmes on any disc, tape, perforated, media or other information storage device.]]” 28. A plain reading of Section 10A(1) of the Act indicates that profits and gains derived by an Assessee from an industrial undertaking to which Section 10A applies is not included in the total income of the Assessee. Section 10A(2