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)

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That 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)

disallowing the deduction claimed on Interest earned of Rs. 35,27,204/- from cooperative banks u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate that i. The assessee is cooperative society eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. ii. Denying

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

disallowed in the above-mentioned order. mentioned order. 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: "80P(1) Where

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 2(19) of the Act, it is quite clear that "co the Act, it is quite clear that "co-operative society" means a co operative society" means a co-operative society registered unde society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any other law for the time being

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 2(19) of the Act, it is quite clear that "co the Act, it is quite clear that "co-operative society" means a co operative society" means a co-operative society registered unde society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any other law for the time being

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 2(19) of the Act, it is quite clear that "co the Act, it is quite clear that "co-operative society" means a co operative society" means a co-operative society registered unde society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any other law for the time being

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 addition of INR 1,24,015/- in respect of interest received from nationalized banks. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 18/12/2019, challenging the above addition/disallowance. The CIT(A) agreed

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, taken up together hereinafter. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance on the Written Submission, dated 04/01/2024 and the judicial precedents cited therein. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand taken by the Assessing Officer

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, taken up together hereinafter. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance on the Written Submission, dated 04/01/2024 and the judicial precedents cited therein. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand taken by the Assessing Officer

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 addition of INR 1,24,015/- in respect of interest received from nationalized banks. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 18/12/2019, challenging the above addition/disallowance. The CIT(A) agreed

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 addition of INR 1,24,015/- in respect of interest received from nationalized banks. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 18/12/2019, challenging the above addition/disallowance. The CIT(A) agreed

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

iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Sangam Nagri Sahakari Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. that

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

MYSTIQUE ROSE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO -22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

IV, Sharatchandra Chatterji Road, (East Avenue), Santacruz (West), Mumbai - 400054 [PAN: AAAAM5892R] ……………… Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer-22(2)(3), Mumbai, Room No. 314, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai - 400013 …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Siddesh Chaugule (AR) For the Appellant/Department Shri Nishant Samaya (DR) Date of conclusion of hearing : 21.02.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

SONMARG CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. (i) Land and Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017) 46 CCH 32 (Mum) (ii) M/s Seagreen Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marwanjee Kamapark Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO Range-20(2)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017 (iv

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD EMPOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(1)(3), MUMBAI

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

IV) This is for the reason that when the legislature wanted to restrict the deduction to a particular type of co-operative society, such as is evident from section 80P(2)(b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHER IT PARK, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE vs. THANE JILLHA PRATHAMIK SIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD, THANE

Accordingly, all the ground raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2020-21 are dismissed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the order, dated 30/04/2024, passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. All the grounds raised by the Assessee, being connected, are taken up together hereinafter. 8. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand taken by the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHAR IT PARK,THANE vs. THANE JILLHA PRATHAMIK SIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD, WAGLE ESTATE,THANE

Accordingly, all the ground raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2020-21 are dismissed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the order, dated 30/04/2024, passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 3 above. All the grounds raised by the Assessee, being connected, are taken up together hereinafter. 8. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand taken by the Assessing