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

condoned the delay in the current appeal, subject to a deposit, and then proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits. Based on various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2

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)

section 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

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)

section 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

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

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There was delay of 22 days in filing the appeal on account of medical issues faced by the chairman of the Appellant/Co- operative Society. Copy of medical reports were placed on record along with affidavit filed with application seeking condonation of delay

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

80P(2)(d) of the Act after considering the detailed replies filed by the appellant society during the course of assessment by the appellant society during the course of assessment by the appellant society during the course of assessment proceedings. proceedings. SaphaleParisarBigarshetiSahkari 3 8. The learned Pr. CIT 8. The learned Pr. CIT-1, Thane ought to have

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. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs 2,56,358/- under section 80P

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

sections": [ "80P(2)(d)", "80P(2)(c)", "143(1)", "250", "80P(4)", "80P", "2(19)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) can adjudicate an appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay

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

condonation of delay in both appeals. In the affidavits, it is submitted that since the assessee is not involved in any business activity, therefore, it has not employed any full-time accountant and staff who would have knowledge of timelines under the Act. It is further submitted that the claim of deduction under section 80P(2

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

condonation of delay in both appeals. In the affidavits, it is submitted that since the assessee is not involved in any business activity, therefore, it has not employed any full-time accountant and staff who would have knowledge of timelines under the Act. It is further submitted that the claim of deduction under section 80P(2

HIRA MANEK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Indore [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively. 2. The present appeals for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 are delayed by 679 days and 650 days, respectively. Along with

HIRA MANEK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Indore [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively. 2. The present appeals for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 are delayed by 679 days and 650 days, respectively. Along with

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

condoned. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing. 2. Sole grievance of assessee is against the denial of deduction of Rs.46.13,533/- claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the in- terest income earned on Time Deposits maintained with Co-operative Banks. 2.1. There is a delay

THE MANGALOREAN GARDEN HOMES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanthe Mangalorean Garden Homes Vs. Ito Ward 23(3)(4) Co-Operative Housing Society Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Matru Limited Mandir, Tardeo Road, Rebello House, 132, Hill Road, Mumbai – 400007. Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050. Pan: Aaaat3420G (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant as well as Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue on merit. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been allowed benefit of Section 80P(2

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

condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in this case the assessee being a cooperative society, has earned the amounts of Rs.2426191/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively from SVC Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. and claimed the same as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) & section 80P(2

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

condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in this case the assessee being a cooperative society, has earned the amounts of Rs.2426191/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively from SVC Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. and claimed the same as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) & section 80P(2