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

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

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(2

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

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, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

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

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

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

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

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

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

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

80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-Society saying that it is interest earned on surplus fund kept with co-operative banks and not in other Co-operative Societies. 3. Treating the income of Rs.36,52,853/- as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. CIT(A) has erred

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

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i). The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below cannot be interfered by the High Court unless there is perversity in such findings. The revenue has not pointed out any material which has not been considered or there is any misreading of the evidence whilst coming to such conclusion. [Para 7] Taking note

SHREE MALGANGADEVI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) i.e. income of a Co-operative Society as carrying on the business of banking is eligible for deduction. 13. As regards MSEB Commission income Rs. 13.883/- 11 I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 Shree Malgangadevi Sahkari Patpedhi Maryadit Here we submit that the patpedhi is appointed as MSEB Bill collection center and is receiving commission income as fixed

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

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(2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

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

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

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

TDS. It further held 4 Mhatre Palace CHSL that mere exclusion of Section 80P to co-operative banks by Section 80P(4) of the Act on liability to pay tax does not prevent the assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n38) From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves\nout a distinction between „stock-in-trade" and “investment" and provides that if the\nmotive behind purchase and sale of shares

BUSSA INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO(22)(1)(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbussa Industrial Premises Co- Ito 22(1)(3), Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chamber, Mumbai. Century Bazaar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaaab6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Pritesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2025

Section 2(19) as follows: “2(19). “Co-operative society” means a co-operative society registered under the Co- operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912 ), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co- operative societies.” 10. A reading of the above definition would make it clear that