GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

disallowance ought to be deleted. 2. The ld. CIT(Appeals) while dismissing the appeal has placed reliance in order passed u/s.250 dated 27.11.2024 on the provision of section 80P

PARSI SALSETTE BLDG NO. 1 CHS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. II raised by the Assessee is allowed and as a result, Ground No

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance made fell outside the scope of adjustments specified in Section 143(1) of the Act and (b) in Ground No. II that even on merits the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2

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

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.1,67,43,337/- and 80P(2)(d) of Rs.43,14,847/-respectively. The Ld. AO disallowed

THE SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(c)and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the basis

SHRI KUMAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JAO MUM -W-22(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shrikumar Co-Operative Housing Asst. Dir. Of I. Tax, Cpc Jao Mum- Society Ltd., W-22(3)(1), Vs. Nehru Road, Santacruz (East), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400055. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaaas 8110 J Appellant Respondent

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the return of income. But the AO disallowed the same on the reas

ITO-41(2)(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAI BHOLENATH CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(d). The AO thus made an addition towards the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P to that tune of Rs.31,59,088/-. The AO also disallowed

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80P(2)(a), 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in disallowing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80P(2)(a), 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in disallowing

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the return of income. But the AO disallowed the same on the reasoning

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the return of income. But the AO disallowed the same on the reasoning

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the return of income. But the AO disallowed the same on the reasoning

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 25(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI POSTAL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallow the claim of Rs.2,14,77,402 under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In response

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGLI VAIBHAV CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing (a) deduction of INR 2,04,65,049/- claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act; and (b) making

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGLI VAIBHAV CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing (a) deduction of INR 2,04,65,049/- claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act; and (b) making

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANGLI VAIBHAV CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowing (a) deduction of INR 2,04,65,049/- claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act; and (b) making

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,VASAI, PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC , DELHI

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act and are, therefore

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act and are, therefore

SANGAM SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADITNAGARI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE vs. MUMBAI-W-91, VASHI NAVIMUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3Rd Floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Aacas 6296 B Appellant Respondent

sections. Similarly, the alternative claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act was also disallowed holding that deduction u/s 80P

RUSTOMJEE ASPIREE PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 26(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rustomjee Aspiree Premises Co- Ito Ward 26(2)(5), Op. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Rustomjee Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, ‘G’ Block Aspiree, Cts No. 628, Ai, Pt Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Kurla, Eatern Express Highway, (East), Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabar 4001 L Appellant Respondent

disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same light of the decision of the Supreme Court