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

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

4) of the Act and is not entitled either to the benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) or of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 10. The law relevant to the facts of the case is extracted as under: i. Income tax Act 1961 “80P. Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. (1) Where

EVEREST GRANDE COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 24 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhaileverest Grande Commercial Premises Co- Op. Society Ltd Cts 46/34, Plot 3A Everest Grande Society, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri Kurla Road, ............... Appellant Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aaaae5455A

property and collecting charges from its members. Further, the assessee is not engaged in any lending activity, does not maintain any loan portfolio, and does not carry out banking functions such as accepting deposits from the public or issuing loans and advances. In the present case, the assessee received interest on fixed deposits and saving bank accounts from various

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

house property income.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "80P(2)(c)", "80P(2)(d)", "250", "143(1)", "80P(4)", "2(19)" ], "issues

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)

property of the society and to raise funds for the management, maintenance and administration of activities from the members of the society. The appellant society filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19 on 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,43,620/- after claiming a deduction of Rs. 37,45,701/- u/s. 80P of the Act. Subsequently, 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)

property of the society and to raise funds for the management, maintenance and administration of activities from the members of the society. The appellant society filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19 on 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,43,620/- after claiming a deduction of Rs. 37,45,701/- u/s. 80P of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee

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

property u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and claimed the same\nas exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively.\nThe said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015, by filing

LAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Laxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Laxmi Nagar, Khar(W), Mumbai-400 052 Pan: Aaaal1009P ...... Appellant Vs.

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

VAIBHAV CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-27 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalvaibhav Co-Operative Credit Society At Post, Ghansoli Thane-Belapur Road Thane- 400 701 Pan:Aaaav3417F ...... Appellant Vs.

4). For the sake of better understanding and ready reference, the provisions of section 80P are reproduced herein below: - Deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. 80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted

PREMIUM TOWER COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 80P(4). The ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said disallowance. 4. We find that this issue has been discussed in detailed by the Tribunal in A.Y.2015-16 wherein all the contentions raised by the ld. CIT(A) has been dealt in detail including the judgments referred and relied upon by the authorities below. The relevant facts and issues

PREMIUM TOWER COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Society Ltd. The society collects contribution from its members for payment of property taxes, water charges and other revenue expenses such as electricity, water, security etc. to maintain society situated at Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai. It has made fixed deposit with various co-operative banks and has earned interest income on fixed deposits and recurring deposits held with many

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)

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co- operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN TOUBRO KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATPEDNI MARYDIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Housing Society Ltd, Tribunal has analysed the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as cited by the department in the grounds of appeal after observing and holding as under:- “4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the only issue is with respect of allowability of deduction of Rs.13

JOLLY MAKER 1 PREM CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI CITY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

4\nITA Nos. 2826 to 2828/Mum/2023\nJolly Maker 1 Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT-18(2)\n3.\nDuring the course of assessment the assessing officer noticed\nthat assessee has declared total income of Rs.11,94,60,410/- which\ncomprised income from house property at Rs.12,32,54,282/-, income\nfrom business or profession at Rs.nil and income from other

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B ) CO -OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. However, while processing the ITR under section 143(1) of the Act, the following additions were made in the income of the assessee. i) addition of Rs.31,50,654/- u/s 43B of the Act. ii) deduction claimed u/s 80(P)(2)(d) was denied. 5. Aggrieved by the said additions, assessee preferred appeal, but the same was dismissed

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B) CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

4. However, while processing the ITR under section 143(1) of the Act, the following additions were made in the income of the assessee. i) addition of Rs.31,50,654/- u/s 43B of the Act. ii) deduction claimed u/s 80(P)(2)(d) was denied. 5. Aggrieved by the said additions, assessee preferred appeal, but the same was dismissed

MAKER TOWER F PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX - CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House Building Societies Ltd Vs. ITO, [1982] 2 ITD 617 (Chd.), after considering the meaning of the word “investment” held that the section 80P(2)(d) of the Act also covers interest income from saving accounts. The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: - “4. We have heard the parties

M/S. THE AJANTA IDEAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX, CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Ajanta Ideal Co- Vs. Adit,Cpc Operative Housing 1Stfloor,Prestigealpha, Society Ltd, 7/1+2, Hosour Road, Ajanta Apartments, Bengaluru-560100. Near Bus Station, 75, Colaba Road, Mumbai-400005 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat7871M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

4,74,120) under section 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 laws 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalcidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Ground Floor, Cidco Bhavan, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan:Aaaac2203N ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 28(1) (3)/ Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

4. We have carefully gone through the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, the order of the Ld. CIT Appeal passed under section 250 of the Act, and submissions of the Assessee along with grounds taken before us. For the sake of convenience and better understanding of the matter before us, Section 80P