THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256 76,45,770 84,00,520 members only Alternate claim of deduction considering deduction under section 80P(2

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256 76,45,770 84,00,520 members only Alternate claim of deduction considering deduction under section 80P(2

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

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

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

CA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68 of the Act. 5. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by provisions of section 263 of the Act, the PCIT issued a show cause notice holding that the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. The PCIT was of the opinion that only income derived from interest/dividend

CA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68 of the Act. 5. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by provisions of section 263 of the Act, the PCIT issued a show cause notice holding that the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. The PCIT was of the opinion that only income derived from interest/dividend

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

68,580/- on 24.11.2009. 03. While passing assessment order AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the act. In response to the penalty notice assessee submitted before AO that :- a. The Deduction was available to the assessee up to A Y 2006-07 and therefore this year assessee was under impression about the availability of this deduction

THE GENERAL MANAGER,NAJIBABAD vs. ACIT, NAJIBABAD

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

Bench: the due date of filing the return.

68,223/- In the instant case, we find that assessee had restricted its claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act only to the extent of gross total income of Rs.63,27,070/-. Hence, entire exercise carried by the lower authorities in this regard is devoid of merits and purely academic. Accordingly, grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee

DCIT, NAJIBABAD vs. M/S KISAN SAHKARI CHINNI MILLS LTD., NAJIBABAD

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

Bench: the due date of filing the return.

68,223/- In the instant case, we find that assessee had restricted its claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act only to the extent of gross total income of Rs.63,27,070/-. Hence, entire exercise carried by the lower authorities in this regard is devoid of merits and purely academic. Accordingly, grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee

M/S. RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of our directions contained in the preceding

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09

68,020/- which was subsequently revised declaring total income of Rs. 1,21,16,08,860/-. Return of income was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and was later selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,36,67,12,228/- after, inter alia

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

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

68,467.74 The net profit of Rs.6,16,467,74/- so derived above was claimed to be exempted u/s 80P(2) (i)(a). It was noticed by the A.O that the profit is mainly due to interest and head office (Fertilizers sale transportation storage). The A.O also gathered on examining the two accounts that income from transportation at Rs.5

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

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

68,467.74 The net profit of Rs.6,16,467,74/- so derived above was claimed to be exempted u/s 80P(2) (i)(a). It was noticed by the A.O that the profit is mainly due to interest and head office (Fertilizers sale transportation storage). The A.O also gathered on examining the two accounts that income from transportation at Rs.5

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

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

68,467.74 The net profit of Rs.6,16,467,74/- so derived above was claimed to be exempted u/s 80P(2) (i)(a). It was noticed by the A.O that the profit is mainly due to interest and head office (Fertilizers sale transportation storage). The A.O also gathered on examining the two accounts that income from transportation at Rs.5

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

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

68,467.74 The net profit of Rs.6,16,467,74/- so derived above was claimed to be exempted u/s 80P(2) (i)(a). It was noticed by the A.O that the profit is mainly due to interest and head office (Fertilizers sale transportation storage). The A.O also gathered on examining the two accounts that income from transportation at Rs.5

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

c) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. In view of larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), following delay(s) in filing the respective appeals are condoned

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SARVA UP GRAMIN BANK, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) which is not a scheduled bank;] (ia) “rural branch” means a branch of a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank situated in a place which has a population of not more than ten thousand according t the last preceding census of which the relevant figures

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)

c. Section 14A does not apply as provisions of the DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee. d. Section 14A does not apply as income earned from securitization trust is taxable under section 115TA of the Act. e. Disallowance made under Rule – 8D(2)(ii) is bad as the assessee had enough interest free funds available. Each