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-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

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

MONALISA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Section 2(19) as follows:\n“2(19). “Co-operative society” means a co-operative society registered\nunder the Co- operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912 ), or under any other\nlaw for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-\noperative societies.”\n10. A reading of the above definition would make it clear that

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

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

D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA no.1725/Mum./2023\n(Assessment Year : 2016-17)\nITA no.1726/Mum./2023\n(Assessment Year : 2017-18)\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN – AADAS7782D\nITA no.1727/Mum./2023\n(Assessment

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

D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA no.1725/Mum./2023\n(Assessment Year : 2016-17)\nITA no.1726/Mum./2023\n(Assessment Year : 2017-18)\nShri Renukamata Multi-State Co-operative\nUrban Credit Society Ltd., 335/2AB\nBehind Pushpak Hotel, Pipe Line Road\nSavedi, Ahmednagar 414 003\nPAN – AADAS7782D\nITA no.1727/Mum./2023\n(Assessment

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

2) as well as\nnotice under section 142(1) of the Act along with a detailed questionnaire were\nissued and served on the assessee. On the perusal of the documents found\nduring the course of the search, the AO vide detailed show cause notice dated\n03/12/2019 noted that there is non-compliance in maintaining proper KҮС\ndocuments, non-compliance

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

D Patani Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha (ITA\nNo.727/PUN/2022 dated 28-03-2023.\n(ii) Merchants Credit Co-op Society Ltd vs. ITO (ITA No.329/Bang/2023\ndated 24.08.2023.\n(iii) Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs. ITO (ITA No.1613/M/21\ndated 05-09-2022.\n\n18. However, as evident from the record, the learned CIT(A) by applying the\nreal income theory

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 194A", "Section 201(1)", "Section 201(1A)", "Section 80P(2)(d)", "Section 271C", "Section 139"], "issues

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS on interest payments exceeding Rs.10,000/-.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 194A", "Section 201", "Section 250", "Section 80P(2)(d