GURU TEGBAHADUR CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , WARD 26 (1)(5), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

80A (5) of the Act, the Petitioners could have maintained the claim of deduction even before the CIT for the first time in Revision Application, though no such claim was made before the Assessing Officer, if from the facts on record, the Petitioners could sustain the said claim in law. This is very clear from the series of Judgments

LEKHA PARIKSHA VIBHAG KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,THANE vs. CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act in terms of section 80AC of the Act, when the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing appeal/cross objection is condoned. Ground No.1 and 2 of Department’s Appeal 11. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue pertain to the directions issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer in relation to claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessee

SHREE MANGIRISH CO-OPERATIVE HSG LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-42(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for\nstatistical purposes

80A(5), the claim for deduction under\nsection 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within\nthe time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above\nprovisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1-4-\n2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction\nunder section

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

80A(5) of the Act in view of the fact that the said provisions applicable from Assessment Year 2015-19 onwards. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Income Tax Officer erred in making addition of gross income of Appellant Society instead of making addition of net profit earned. Therefore

STERLING COURT F WING CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

80A(5) r.w.s. 139(1) of\nthe Act, any deduction claimed under Chapter-VIA which includes section 80P\nalso is not admissible unless the return of income is filed on or before the due\ndate specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also mentioned\nthat the interest income received by the assessee from Saraswat

SIDDHIVINAYAK CO-OP. IND. PREMISES SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 4575/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2013-14) Siddhivinayak Co-Operative Industrial Premises Society Limited, Bldg. No.8, Jogani Indstrial Complex, Plot No.1, Survey No.2, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 Pan: Aaajs 2579J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

delay of nine days in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3. Shri Priyesh S. Khirad appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee inter-alia earned interest

STERLING COURT F WING CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

80A(5) r.w.s. 139(1) of the Act, any deduction claimed under Chapter-VIA which includes section 80P also is not admissible unless the return of income is filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also mentioned that the interest income received by the assessee from Saraswat

STERLING COURT F WING CO -OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly\nallowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations.\n16. In combined result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed in terms\nof our aforesaid observations

80A(5) r.w.s. 139(1) of\nthe Act, any deduction claimed under Chapter-VIA which includes section 80P\nalso is not admissible unless the return of income is filed on or before the due\ndate specified under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also mentioned\nthat the interest income received by the assessee from Saraswat

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. ASR MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. As the facts are identical in the instant appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4935/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18 as the lead year. For sake of convenience, grounds raised by revenue for AY 2017-18 are extracted as under:- 1. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. ASR MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. As the facts are identical in the instant appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4935/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18 as the lead year. For sake of convenience, grounds raised by revenue for AY 2017-18 are extracted as under:- 1. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. ASR MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for all the assessment years filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. As the facts are identical in the instant appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4935/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18 as the lead year. For sake of convenience, grounds raised by revenue for AY 2017-18 are extracted as under:- 1. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CICLE-8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has raised the additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of revision order as under: 1. The appellant submits that the notice u/s 263 and the consequential order are barred by limitation. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT