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)

4) of the Act, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable in respect of interest received by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank. 11.2. During the course of hearing strong reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary

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)

4) of the Act, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable in respect of interest received by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank. 11.2. During the course of hearing strong reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary

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)

4) of the Act, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable in respect of interest received by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank. 11.2. During the course of hearing strong reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary

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

4) of the Act, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable in respect of interest received by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank. 10.2. During the course of hearing strong reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary

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

4) of the Act, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowable in respect of interest received by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank. 10.2. During the course of hearing strong reliance was placed by the Learned Departmental Representative on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Katlary

BOMBAY CITY POSTAL CLERKS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-20, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

capital in an excess of rupees one lakh. It has been the Bombay City Postal Clearks Co.op. Credit Society Ltd. ;A. Y.2017-18 appellant's contention that the conditions No. (1) and (3) provided above are not satisfied. 10. Therefore the issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant satisfies condition No.(1) and (3) above. The impugned order after

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

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

YASHOMANDIR SAHAKARI PATPETDHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negiyashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., 307, Mahavir Apartment, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400075 Pan:Aaaay 0015A ... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(4) Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi Railway Stn. Complex, Navi Mumbai 400 703 .... Respondent Income Tax Officer 22(2)(4) Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi Railway Stn. Complex, Navi Mumbai 400 703 .... Appellant

gains of any business (including providing of credit facilities) carried on by a co–operative society with its members was also “income”. The Assessing Officer observed that the deduction from gross total income of certain receipts is available only to primary agricultural credit societies or primary co–operative agricultural and rural development banks and that the benefit of such deduction

TUPURWADI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

80P : (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 the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

gains of business. This is why Totgars struck a different note." 14. This apart, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another V Totgars Co- operative Sale Society, [2017] 392 ITR 74 (Karn.), has, after referring Hon’ble Apex Court Judgement in Totgar (Supra) held in para 7,8,9,10 as under: "7. However

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

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

capital of the society as on 31/03/2013 was Rs.3,34,30,782/- and reserves and surplus was Rs. 4,58,21,356/-. The assessee was having bank balance of Rs. 1,35,15,155/- mainly with Maharashtra District Central Co-op Bank and ICICI Bank. The investment was to the extent of Rs. 42,00,92,288/-. The loan

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

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

section 80P(4) of the Act. 6.8 Now, the question is confined to single point as to whether the appellant has derived its interest income from the party falling in the first bracket or in the second bracket or both. If the interest income has been earned from any co-operative society having a banking license or from any commercial

INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.928/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito-21(2)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Mahapalika Kshetra Room No.111, 1St Floor, Madhyamik Vs. Shikshaksahakari Patsanstha Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Maryadit, 201/202, Anish Tower, Senapati Bapat Marg, Matunga (W), Mumbai-400016. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaam1865G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. K. Mitra Assessee By: Shri Narend. Sheth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital of the society as on 31.03.2014 was Rs.4,24,63,610/- and deposit was in sum of Rs.11,21,30,850/- as on 31.03.2014. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.69,60,766/-. Since the assessee was in the banking business, therefore, the claimed u/s 80P of the Act of Rs.69