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

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c)(ii) in respect of interest income earned from other co-operative banks. 3. Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a Credit Co-operative Society and assessed in the status of Association of Persons (AOP). In the return of income filed for the assessment year under dispute, assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2) in respect of interest income

SAINI CO-OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-48(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

c ie t y 25 /1 067 76 652 3 (1 ) Da te d: Lt d. 20. 08 .2 024 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. Saini Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. 3. It emerges after a combined perusal of the assessee’s instant twin appeals for the very assessment year 2016-17 involving assessment

SAINI CO-OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-48(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

c ie t y 25 /1 067 76 652 3 (1 ) Da te d: Lt d. 20. 08 .2 024 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. Saini Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. 3. It emerges after a combined perusal of the assessee’s instant twin appeals for the very assessment year 2016-17 involving assessment

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

disallowed by the lower authorities for income earned from interest on deposits and commission from M/s. Modi Industries. The assessment orders were dated 04.12.2017.", "held": "The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). It also

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

disallowed deductions on interest income from banks and commission income, treating them as income from other sources.", "held": "The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, following catena of decisions. Similarly, commission income earned from regular

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

disallowed for section 80P deduction. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated these incomes as 'income from other sources'. The appeals were filed against these orders.", "held": "The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments of surplus funds with cooperative banks and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2

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

disallowance of its section 80P deduction claim for interest income earned from banks and commission income from M/s. Modi Industries. The lower authorities treated these as income from 'other' sources.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on investments of surplus funds made with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P

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

disallowed for deduction under Section 80P by the lower authorities. The appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s orders, involving multiple assessment years.", "held": "The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2

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

SAHAKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO-2(5) CHANDAUSI, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasahakari Ganna Vikas Vs. Ito-2(5), Samiti, Sikri Gate Chandausi Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-244 412 Pan No. Aaaaf 1459 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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

disallowance by the lower authorities was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "147", "271(1)(c)", "143(3)", "80P(2

CANADIAN SPECIALITY VINYLS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 63(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Canadian Specialty Vinyls Ito Ward-63(4), Delhi 110055 49, Rani Janshi Road, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 Vs. Pan Aagfc 0200 J

2,00,10,879/- on account of late filling of income tax return. He further submitted that the CIT (A) has also erred on facts and in law for not considering the timely filling of Audit Report us 80IC in form 10CCB under rule 18BBB and tax audit report in form 3CB/CD us 44AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 from

GOHANA CO-OP MARKETING PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD,GOHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Gohana Co-Op Marketing Vs Ito, Processing Society Ltd., Shop No.1, Sonipat. New Anaj Mandi, Gohana, Sonipat, Haryana-131301 Pan-Aaaag0108Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024 Order

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income tax Act, 1961.”_ 3. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee despite various opportunities were provided to the assessee. On the last date of hearing