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)

L. Vajani Date Conclusion of hearing : 09.05.2024 Pronouncement of order : 22.05.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are 3 appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2020-2021 preferred by the Revenue against three separate orders, each dated 23/08/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

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

l a consequence, the investments were shown as liabilities, as they iabilities, as they represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived represented the money belonging to the members. The income derived from the investments made by retaining the from the investments made by retaining the monies belonging

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

L imited itself rendered on 08th February 2010, in Tot- gar's Co-operative Sale Soci ety Limited v. ITO , reported in MANU/SC/0095/2010: (2010) 322 ITR 283 SC : ( 2010) 3 SCC 223 for the preceding years, namely Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 (except Assessment Year 1995-1996) holding that such interest income earned by the assessee was taxable

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

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita No.4582/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Ito 21(2)(2), Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Room No. 111, 1St Floor, 201/202, Anish Tower, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bapat Marg, Matunga West, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 016

L A/c 3. Total Income 55,38,329/- 3,13,736/- 12,400 The expenditure for interest and other income is considered on pro-rata basis On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the CIT(A) observed that the claim for deduction under Sec. 80P that was raised by the assessee was to be compartmentalised into the following two parts

MAHIM VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD.,,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

L account that the assessee has credited rental income at Rs. 3,62,011/-, discount Rs. 2,07,764/- and other income (which is not specified) at Rs. 22,40,853/- aggregating Rs. 28,10,628/-. The assessee society has claimed the entire other income as deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, such income does not qualify for deduction

SANJAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,THANE vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

L account that the assessee has credited rental income at Rs. 3,62,011/-, discount Rs. 2,07,764/- and other income (which is not specified) at Rs. 22,40,853/- aggregating Rs. 28,10,628/-. The assessee society has claimed the entire other income as deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, such income does not qualify for deduction

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

capital gain is liable to be deleted. 11. In the result the grounds No. 3to 9 are allowed. 12. As we have allowed the Ground No.3 to 9 of the appeal on merit, therefore, the discussion on ground No.1 & 2, which relates to validity of the reopening, has become academic. 13. Ground No.10 relates to disallowance of deduction under section

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

L Account held that since the Assessee had not, vide its replies, given any response to the request for details regarding TDS compliance, hence the same was added back to the taxable income and resultantly an addition of Rs. 4, 81,264/- was made. vi) The Ld. Assessing Officer on the issue of Form 3CD filed by the Assessee

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeals stand dismissed

l)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is hereby initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that the was not a cooperative bank. The learned CIT(A) held as under :- 7. I have considered the facts of the case, oral contentions and written submissions

MIG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY GROUP- II LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

capital gains, as claimed by the assessee. Fourth Ground is decided in favour of the assessee. 9.Ground No.5 is about taxing Rs.9.04 crores.During the assessment proceedings the AO noted that as per clause 5A of the Agreement the society was to receive a benefit by way of discharge of liabilities which were otherwise dischargeable by it from its own fund

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

l)(c) and interest u/s 234A, B, C & D.” 3. In so far as Ground No. 1 and 2 are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue in these grounds is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA.No. 6964/Mum/2017 dated

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

2,000 crores in this process. 30 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) 6.5 In this regard, we respectfully reiterate that the appointed date of the amalgamation was not in the year under consideration (AY 2012-13). Further, the consideration was not received by the assessee and hence, had no bearing on its taxable income

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

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\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

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

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

L Account which refers to operating expenses, we find two distinct heads of expenditure, namely, "Provision for Non-performing Assets" and "Bad Debts/Advances Written Off". It is for the appellant(s) to explain the difference between the two to the Assessing Officer. Which of the two items will constitute expenditure under the Income-tax Act has to be decided according

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. CENTAUR MERCHANTILE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

capitalized as CWIP. It was further held by the FAA that the 4 Centaur Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. CWIP has been reduced by the AO for the relevant year which will have a consequential effect of increasing the profits in the subsequent years when the income is booked as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee. The FAA equated

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

L Account which refers to operating expenses, we find two distinct heads of expenditure, namely, "Provision for Non-performing Assets" and "Bad Debts/Advances Written Off". It is for the appellant(s) to explain the difference between the two to the Assessing Officer. Which of the two items will constitute expenditure under the Income-tax Act has to be decided according

ASST CIT 15(2), MUMBAI vs. SHUBH ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

2. So far as question (i) is concerned, the respondent- assessee has claimed deduction of interest on tax free bonds of Rs.5,60,11,644/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of interest on tax free bonds. While preparing the said details, it was noticed that 6 percent Government of India Capital