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

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

condone the delay. The Tribunal further held, based on various judicial pronouncements and the principle of favoring the assessee in case of ambiguity, that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from co-operative banks is allowable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "80P(2)(d)", "80P(2)(c

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

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

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 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

C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Assessee by : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan Revenue by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order - 26/06/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 23/11/2024, passed under section

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)

80P (2)(d) of the Act made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the disallowance is a debatable issue and hence the adjustment is bad in law. 5) The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset

M/S.ABHINAV CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER,CPC, MUMBAI

condoned delay in filing the appeals for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2019-20 in paragraph 2 above. We note that the grounds raised in the present appeal challenging the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and 80P(c

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

C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1346/Mum./2023 ITA No.1347/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Pathare Prabhu Co–operative Housing Society Ltd. Plot no.340, 12th Road, Prabhu Nagar ……………. Appellant Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AAAAPS4549G v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1346/Mum./2023 ITA No.1347/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Pathare Prabhu Co–operative Housing Society Ltd. Plot no.340, 12th Road, Prabhu Nagar ……………. Appellant Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AAAAPS4549G v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

SAGAR PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCITEY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shir Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesagar Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(1) 327, Sagar Premises, Narshi Natha Street Kautilya Bhavan Kharek Bazar, Masjid (W), Mumbai - 400009 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aamas0482M (Appellant) (Respondent)

80P(2)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) confirming levy of Rs. 1000 late fees under section 234F of Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the return was filed on 24.09.2018 i.e. within due date under section 139(1) of Income

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

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits