SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,VASAI, PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC , DELHI

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGLI VAIBHAV CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P

SANGAM SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADITNAGARI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE vs. MUMBAI-W-91, VASHI NAVIMUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3Rd Floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Aacas 6296 B Appellant Respondent

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank s they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD EMPOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(1)(3), MUMBAI

capital from their salaries and does not accept any deposits and or loans from any pension for its transaction and activities. The society was availing overdraft facility against its own deposits from the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. and paid interest on the same. The assessee by virtue of letter dated 21.11.2012 also stated that the society was eligible

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(1)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

capital from their salaries and does not accept any deposits and or loans from any pension for its transaction and activities. The society was availing overdraft facility against its own deposits from the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. and paid interest on the same. The assessee by virtue of letter dated 21.11.2012 also stated that the society was eligible

SANGAM NAGARI SAHAKRI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,NAVIMUMBAI vs. MUM-W-91-RANGE-222, NAVIMUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

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

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing

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

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing

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

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing

ITO 21(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MTNL MUMBAI EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

gains attributable to the activities of providing credit facilities to its members . 4.3.1 For coming to the above conclusion, reliance is placed on the following decisions . . ij Order of CIT(Appeals)-33 Mumbai in appellant's own case for AY2013-14 dated 17.04.2018 wherein the addition made by the AO on account of . disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2jfaj

MIDDLE INCOME GROUP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

IV Ltd., Mumbai. Near Building A/63, Gandhi Vs. Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 PAN: AABAT3244P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh A. Thar, : Chaitanya Joshi & Hardik Nirmal (AR) Revenue by : Shri Narendra Kumar (CIT- DR) Date of hearing 20.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These

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

iv) the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or (v) The processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its member, or (vi) The collective disposal of the labour of its members, or (vii) fishing or allied activities, that

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

capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013–14 on 24th September 2013, declaring total income at ` 3 The Salsette Catholic Co– Operative Housing Ltd. 2,13,29,800, after claiming disallowance of ` 2,09,07,670, made under section 80P of the Act. For the assessment year

ITO-26(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S RAMARAJA KSHATRIYA CO-OP CREDIT SOC. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals stand dismissed

capital and reserves should not be less than rupee one lac (iii) its bye-laws do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as its member. It is also pertinent to note that in the above quoted decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (quoted supra

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) -40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80P of Rs. 2,14,164. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from CIB/AIR that assessee had purchased and sold immovable property for Rs. 1,59,91,002 and Rs. 98,08,500, respectively, during the year under consideration, which has not been declared in the return of income for assessment year 2010–11, reassessment proceedings were initiated

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

iv)\n(v)\n(vi)\n(vii)\n(viii)\n(ix)\nDisallowance of ease of expenses\nDisallowance of interest under section 43B r.w.r 6EA\nDisallowance of interest accrued but not due\nDisallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D\nDisallowance under section 35D\nDisallowance of bad-debts pertaining to Credit Card\nDisallowance of interest on perpetual bonds\nDisallowance of amortization of premium

NAVBHARAT URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate