THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

80P of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2016 at total income of ₹ 1,03,830/-in the status of Association of persons (AOP). Thereafter, learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalty of ₹ 36,45,841/- vide

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

DCIT, REWARI vs. M/S THE REWARI DISTRICT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,, REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. For interest accrued on NPA, the Ld. AR relied upon the the coordinate bench decision in case of ACIT vs. The Rohtak Central Cooperative bank Ltd. being ITA No. 2839/DEL/2011 . The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieve with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that

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

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

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

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

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

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

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

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

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

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

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

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 3533/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) that whether assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. c. Submitted the numerous case laws relating to the issue of penalty. 04. However AO rejecting the explanation of the assessee levied penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Rs. 15449290/- . Against this order Assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A) who in turn confirmed the penalty

THE JEEVAN SANCHAY COOPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 8070/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Jeevan Sanchay Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-53(1), New Delhi B-66, Bk Dutt Colony, New Delhi (Pan:Aadat6757F) (Assessee) (Respondent)

80P (2) (d) in the Income tax Return duly filed. 5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) read with section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Saini Co-Operative Tharift & Vs Ito, Credit Society, 2429-21, Ward-48(1), Bazar Kamra Bangash, Darya New Delhi Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabas8396K Appellant Respondent Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Appellant By Shri V.Raj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr 01.07.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee society is registered under Co- operative Societies Act, as no profit or loss entity to financially help its member on the concept of mutuality. The society is earning income from interest on loan to its members and surplus funds are being kept in bank FDRs. The assessee society filed

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section

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)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB