BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

144 results for “TDS”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai144Bangalore62Raipur53Pune38Cochin28Delhi27Chennai24Ahmedabad24Visakhapatnam22Kolkata17Hyderabad15Jaipur14Surat13Lucknow9Nagpur9Jabalpur7Karnataka6Rajkot5Jodhpur4Panaji4Chandigarh3Amritsar2Indore2Varanasi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 194A268Section 201(1)230Section 194A(3)(v)176Section 201134Section 2(19)96TDS89Section 80P(2)(d)68Section 25055Section 80P55Exemption

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 1600/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar ShindeFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There was delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of medical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co- operative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record along with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of delay

Showing 1–20 of 144 · Page 1 of 8

...
51
Deduction41
Addition to Income20

MAKER TOWER F PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1362/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS to be deducted at the time of payment/credit of interest to the account of the payee, provided other conditions as laid down in the section are satisfied. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is also entitled to claim deduction under section 80P

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1599/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Shinde
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 3. There was delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of medical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co- operative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record along with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of delay

PREMIUM TOWER CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2436/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) would not apply on the facts of that case. However, as noted above in one of the judgment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held the same issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society

MARIGOLD MERIDIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 9072/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

80P(2)(d) is a debatable and adjudicatory issue, which cannot be adjusted in an intimation under Section 143(1). 8. Failure to Consider Disclosures and Supporting Evidence The CIT(A) erred by failing to appreciate that the assessee had duly disclosed the interest income, TDS

MARIGOLD MERIDIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 9070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

80P(2)(d) is a debatable and adjudicatory issue, which cannot be adjusted in an intimation under Section 143(1). 8. Failure to Consider Disclosures and Supporting Evidence The CIT(A) erred by failing to appreciate that the assessee had duly disclosed the interest income, TDS

MARIGOLD MERIDIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-41(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 9071/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

80P(2)(d) is a debatable and adjudicatory issue, which cannot be adjusted in an intimation under Section 143(1). 8. Failure to Consider Disclosures and Supporting Evidence The CIT(A) erred by failing to appreciate that the assessee had duly disclosed the interest income, TDS

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

80P(4) of the Act. Further, NBFC shall have the meaning as assigned to it in section 45-I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. 25. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and is a registered Multi-State Co-operative Urban Credit Society established under the Multi

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

80P(4) of the Act. Further, NBFC shall have the meaning as assigned to it in section 45-I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. 25. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and is a registered Multi-State Co-operative Urban Credit Society established under the Multi

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

80P(4) of the Act. Further, NBFC shall have the meaning as assigned to it in section 45-I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. 25. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and is a registered Multi-State Co-operative Urban Credit Society established under the Multi

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2076/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

80P(4) of the Act. Further, NBFC shall have the meaning as assigned to it in section 45-I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. 25. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and is a registered Multi-State Co-operative Urban Credit Society established under the Multi

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2077/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

80P(4) of the Act. Further, NBFC shall have the meaning as assigned to it in section 45-I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1935. 25. On the other hand, it is undisputed that the assessee is a co-operative credit society and is a registered Multi-State Co-operative Urban Credit Society established under the Multi

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 700/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalcidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ground Floor, Cidco Bhavan, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan:Aaaac2203N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 28(1) (3)/ Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)Section 80Section 80P

section 80P. Resultantly the deduction claims of the Assessee for Rs. 60, 61,597/- was denied and added back to the Assessee’s taxable income. ii) The Ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of payment on account of professional fees of Rs. 59,200/- claimed by the Assessee in the P&L Account held that since the Assessee

PALM COURT M PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 30, MUMBAI

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

ITA 561/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) and on TDS payments and thereby to frame the assessment de novo in accordance with law. Aggrieved

ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S THE SALSETTE CATHOLIC CO-OP. HOUSING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is for the A

ITA 3870/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 194ASection 2(19)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

TDS. The Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 2nd March 2016, sought explanation from the assessee as to why the deduction claimed should not be disallowed and added back to the total income in view of the provisions of section 80P

MHATRE PALACE CHSL,BORIVALI WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42 1 3 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 887/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Mandar Vaidya A/w. KalpeshFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali, (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 250Section 5Section 57Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS. It further held 4 Mhatre Palace CHSL that mere exclusion of Section 80P to co-operative banks by Section

JAI BHAVANI RETI UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,VIRAR vs. THANE 4(1), ASHAR IT PARK THANE

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

ITA 7310/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jai Bhavani Reti Utpadak Sahakari Ito,Ward-4(1), Thane Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ashar It Park, Thane, At Naringi Post Virar, Vasai-Virar, Maharashtra – 400602. Maharashtra – 401201. [Pan No. Aaatj6207E] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69ASection 80P

section 80P and not allowing credit of TDS shown in form 26AS. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

THE PANCHRATNA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1433/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR.DR.)
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d), the interest income derived from its investments with any other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction. In the Instant case, the interest income has been derived from investments made in Co-operative Banks which does not fall under purview of Co- operative Society. Further, Interest income received from Nationalised Bank was also not eligible

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (AMBOLI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6422/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee had not deducted TDS u/s 194A of the Act on the interest

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED , CHEMBUR BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6417/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee had not deducted TDS u/s 194A of the Act on the interest