BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(d) of the Act and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-op Society Ltd.. 9. Per contra, learned DR has opposed the assessee’s prayer for the condonation of said delay of 201 days in filing the appeal and vehemently supported impugned order on merits

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(d) of the Act and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Blue Rose Industrial Premises Co-op Society Ltd.. 9. Per contra, learned DR has opposed the assessee’s prayer for the condonation of said delay of 201 days in filing the appeal and vehemently supported impugned order on merits

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts of t Briefly stated, facts of the case are that for the year under he case are that for the year under consideration no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. consideration no regular return of income was filed

DHANVARSHA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was not justified both in facts and in law in: 1. Denying the deduction for Rs.36

SILVER SAND COOP HOUSING SOC LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society

DHANVARSHA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of\nmedical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co-\noperative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record\nalong with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of\ndelay. We are satisfied that the Appellant had sufficient cause for\nnot fling the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Therefore

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

condoned.\n3. We have duly considered the issue and find some merit in the contentions. We have also gone through medical documents filed in support of the above submissions. However, it is equally true that there is substantial delay in both the years which also indicates some element of carelessness on part of the assessee who must have other persons

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

condone the delay and/or dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for want of limitation but still proceeded with the merits of the case and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on merits as well; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the issue qua deduction claimed u/s 80P

PATHARE PRABHU CO OP HSTG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the same on merits. 4. Since both appeals pertain to the same assessee involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order

PATHARE PRABHU CO OP HSTG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the same on merits. 4. Since both appeals pertain to the same assessee involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order

B.S.N.L EMPLOYEES JUNIOR CO OPERATIVE CREIDT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbsnl Employees Junior Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., 1St Floor, Bsnl Office Of Cto, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400001 Pan : Aaaat8885H V/S Ito – 17(1)(2), Room No.109, 1St Floor Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan Revenue By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the same on merit. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Learned A.O. has erred in reopening the case u/s. 263 on the directions of the CIT when the original Assessment was us 143(3) & then the order was passed after duly

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5)/THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

1) To allow the deduction of Rs. 46,13,533/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(d). 2) To delete the interest u/s 234A, B & C and penalty u/s 270A. [C] General:- • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed late and the delay may please be condoned

GALAXY COOP HSG SOC LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

condone the delay and/or dismissed the appeal\nof the Assessee for want of limitation but still proceeded with the\nmerits of the case and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the\nAssessee on merits as well; therefore, the impugned order is liable\nto be set aside. However, considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances, as the issue qua deduction claimed u/s 80P

ROHIT CHAMBERS PREMISES COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rohit Chambers Premises Assessing Officer, Coop Society Limited, Ward 26(1)(1), Janmabhoomi Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Vs. Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai Bkc, Bandra Kurla – 400001. Complex, Bandra (E), Pan – Aaaar44550K. Mumbai 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee By Filing Its Return Of Income On Dated 19.09.2018 Had Declared Gross Total Income Of Rs.26,69,680/- Under The Head Income From The Other Sources & Claimed The Same As Exempt Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

1) of the Act, otherwise not eligible, which can be verified from the provisions of Section 80 A C of the Act as amended. As in the instant case, the due date for filing the ITR was 31.08.2017 but the assessee filed the same only on 19.09.2018 and also not filed any condonation of delay under Section 119 (2) (b

BRIGHTON CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner in filing of first appeal is condoned. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the assessee during the year under consideration has earned interest income from SVC Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd and claimed the deduction of the same as exempt u/s 80P

BRIGHTON CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner in filing of first appeal is condoned. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the assessee during the year under consideration has earned interest income from SVC Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd and claimed the deduction of the same as exempt u/s 80P

BRIGHTON CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

delay occurred before the Ld. Commissioner in filing of first appeal is condoned. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the assessee during the year under consideration has earned interest income from SVC Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd and claimed the deduction of the same as exempt u/s 80P

HILLWAY SADHNA CO OP OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay in filing these appeals before us and consider the issue for adjudication on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the bench queried the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A)-41, since the appeal dismissed for the reason that the same is withdrawn by the assessee