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

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

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

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Cidco Employees Ward 28(1)(3), 3Rd Floor, Co. Op. Credit Society Ground Floor, Tower No. 6, Vs. Cidco Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station, Cbd- Belapur, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400614. Mumbai- 400703. Pan: Aaaac2230N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. [B] General:-  The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.  This appeal is filed late and delay may be condoned  A detailed paper book will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

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

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

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

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 (2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in respect of interest received from deposits kept

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)(d) for interest income from co-operative banks and also allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(c) for house property income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

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

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

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

INFINITY TOWERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO -22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

4. The Ld.AR further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount

INFINITY TOWERS CO OP HSG SOC LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

4. The Ld.AR further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount

INFINITY TOWERS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

4. The Ld.AR further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay and without considering the merit the appellate order was passed on ground of limitation which is gross valuation of national justice. She further argued that the assessee claimed interest earned from investment in co-operative bank Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Limited amount

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

4 seeking condonation of the delay filed by the assessee along with seeking condonation of the delay filed by the assessee along with seeking condonation of the delay filed by the assessee along with affidavit. He submitted delay occurred due to following reasons: affidavit. He submitted delay occurred due to following affidavit. He submitted delay occurred due to following

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

condone the delay to take up the matter for adjudication. 3. Assessee is a Cooperative Credit Society, carrying on banking business and providing banking facilities to its members. Assessee accepts deposits from its members and gives loan to its members. Assessee filed its return of income on 27.10.2017 reporting a total income at Rs.1,91,57,850/- and claimed deduction