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)(d

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

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

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

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

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)

d. further this amount of retained money 30% of deposits cannot be kept idle and the same is deposited with recognized banks. As such the income derived from these banks by way of keeping deposits with them, 7 I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2019 Shree Malgangadevi Sahkari Patpedhi Maryadit can be characterized as business income only. Further we submit that the deposit

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)(d

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

d) of the Act on interest earning from cooperative banks are eligible for deduction. 7. The Bombay High Court in the case of Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [Tax Appeal Nos. 22 to 24 of 2015, dated 17-1-2015] has held, “That in terms of section 80P the meaning of the words co-operative

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

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

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)(d

CUFFE PARADE PERSEPOLIS PREMISES CO-OP. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT, WARD-17, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act. In the said notice, the deduction claimed by the asssessee under Chapter VI of the Act was directed to be examined by the ld AO. Accordingly, the ld AO issued thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 20.6.2017 asking for the relevant details :- Question No. 3 – Please file head wise break up of income

ADHAR NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Adhar Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Pr. Cit-1 Maryadit Room No. ‘B’ Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle 001, Adhar Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Vs. Maryadit, Uttam Road, Morva, Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Bhayandar-401 101

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and u/s.269SS of the Act amounting to Rs.59,93,369/- and also to verify the applicability of the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on ‘other income’ amounting to Rs.11,24,334/-. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. PCIT passed

PRITVI APARTMENTS CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MMBAI vs. PR. CIT. CITY-19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, That The Assessee Had Shown Nil Income Under The Head ‘Income From Business’ As Under:- Net Profit As Per Profit & Loss Account (-) 39,46,245 Add: Other Disallowance U/S 36 39,46,245 ------------------ Business Income Nil ------------------

TDS credit available with the assessee. The details of income from other sources are as under:- a)Interest on deposit with ShamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd - 1,01,992 b) Interest on deposit with ShamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd - 4,69,708 c) Interest on deposit with ShamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd - 10,69,640 d) Interest on deposit with

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

d. The statements of the various parties (customers, directors and employees) do not indicate that the funds have been used by the appellant for its personal benefits or that of its related parties. While there are contents related to charging of commission, failure to follow KYC norms, splitting of cash deposits etc, the siphoning off of funds by the appellant

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

d. The statements of the various parties (customers, directors and employees) do not indicate that the funds have been used by the appellant for its personal benefits or that of its related parties. While there are contents related to charging of commission, failure to follow KYC norms, splitting of cash deposits etc, the siphoning off of funds by the appellant

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

D Patani Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha (ITA No.727/PUN/2022 dated 28-03-2023. (ii) Merchants Credit Co-op Society Ltd vs. ITO (ITA No.329/Bang/2023 dated 24.08.2023. (iii) Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs. ITO (ITA No.1613/M/21 dated 05-09-2022. 18. However, as evident from the record, the learned CIT(A) by applying the real income theory made the addition