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

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

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)

condone the said delay of 201 days. 11. Coming on to the merits of the case, the definitions of the “co-operative society” under the Income Tax Act 1961 read as under: “section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act 1961 “ ‘Co-Operative Society’ means a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative societies Act 1912 ( 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)

condone the said delay of 201 days. 11. Coming on to the merits of the case, the definitions of the “co-operative society” under the Income Tax Act 1961 read as under: “section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act 1961 “ ‘Co-Operative Society’ means a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative societies Act 1912 ( 2

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

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

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

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

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

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. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted

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

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(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

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(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

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(2

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

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

80P(2)(d). On perusal of the Affidavit filed by the counsel of the assessee, we notice that the AO subsequently had stated that the rectification was not possible. Therefore in our considered view, there is merit in the submission that there was a bonafide belief that the issue would be resolved at AO's level and hence the appeal

STELLA MARIS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22 3 6, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

delay is accordingly condoned. 7. As the issue qua deduction claimed u/s. 84P(2d) of the Act is covered by various judgments of the Hon'ble Courts including by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pathare Prabhu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1346 & 1347/M/2023 decided on 27.07.2023) (2023) 153 taxmann.com

STELLA MARIS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22 3 6 , PIRAMAL CHAMDERS MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.1962/MUM/2025 stands allowed, whereas

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2016-17

delay is accordingly condoned. 7. As the issue qua deduction claimed u/s. 84P(2d) of the Act is covered by various judgments of the Hon'ble Courts including by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pathare Prabhu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.1346 & 1347/M/2023 decided on 27.07.2023) (2023) 153 taxmann.com

BIANCA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– ―1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in denying deduction of INR 28,89,538/- u/s 80P(2