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)

section 80P(4) is applicable in assessee‟s case and disallowed assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

u/s 80P(2)(d). 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax officer 22(2)(3) („learned AO‟) erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 3,80,214 claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned

DY CIT CC 2 (3), MUMBAI vs. MS PREITY ZINTA , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

u/s. 271(1)(c) is quashed.” 8. Against the above order Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has filed cross objection. Since the cross objection challenges the jurisdiction we address the same first. The grounds raised in this regard may be repeated here for the sake of clarity :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

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.

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and upholding the order of the ld. assessing officer. 1(b). The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC had erred in upholding the view of the Id. assessing officer and hence disallowing deduction of Rs.10,90,706/- which had been claimed under section 80P(2)(d) and Rs.11,79,656/- under section 80P

EL CID CO .OP.HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 80P(2)(d) of the I-T Act. In the present case, the assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 14,26,317/- from such co- operative bank. In view of the above discussion, the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2) (d) of the Act of Rs. 14,26,317/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income

ASST CIT 15(2), MUMBAI vs. SHUBH ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(l)(c) is directed to be deleted.” 5. Aggrieved by the deletion of penalty by learned CIT(A), the Revenue has come in an appeal before the tribunal . None appeared on behalf of the assessee when appeal was called for hearing before the tribunal . The Ld. DR has relied upon order levying penalty passed

M/S APACE REALTY ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KALYAN

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

u/s 271AA therefore, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 16. Against the above order assessee has filed this appeal. 17. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has summarized his submission as under:- “It is submitted that penalty under section 271AA was initiated on the ground of failure

SHRI RAJENDRA P. JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. DYCIT, CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Laliet Kumar (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 190 To 192/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2012-13,2013-14 & 2014-15) Rajendra P.Jain Dcit,Cc-1(3) Vs. A-1605, Samarpan 905, 9Th Floor Exotica, Off.Dattapada Old Cgo Building Road, Behind Metro Mall, Prathishta Bhawan Borivali(E) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Abhpj0579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, considering the overall facts of the case. The levy of penalty/s. 271(1)(c) is confirmed only on amount of addition of Rs. 1,70,922/-. The AO is directed to work our quantum of penalty accordingly.” 4. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both

GOLDEN SQUARE CHS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square Chsltd., Vs. Ito – 22(1)(5),Roomno. Cst Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3Rdfloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kunal Lunawat & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act, 1960. In view of above, deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is not available to the assessee. Further, no such claim i.e. claim of "concept of mutuality" or "deduction u/s 80P" has been made in return of income. In view of above, an amount of Rs. 11,95,223/i.e. Rs. 14,72,049 Rs.2

ITO 24 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S OBEROI SPRING CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus grounds of appeal raised by appellant are allowed. 4.3 Ground number 4 & 5 refers to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T Act 1961. Since the AO has not imposed penalty, this ground of appeal filed by the appellant is premature and accordingly the same is dismissed

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. CENTAUR MERCHANTILE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

u/s. 271(1)(c). Moreover, no stay has been granted by any higher Court on the operation of the orders of the Tribunal in the said cases of M/s. Kanakia Hospitality P. Ltd. and M/s. Sarang Property Developers P. Ltd. and hence, the said decisions are binding on the undersigned. Therefore, judicial discipline requires that the decision

SHORLINE HOTEL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT- CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. In identical situation, Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Mohammed Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT (supra) has held as under:- 3 Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. We have already discussed what constitutes the ratio decidendi or case holding and what it takes to b a precedent. Now, we will see what

NAVBHARAT URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), THANE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) and interest u/s 234A, B, C & D.” 3. In so far as Ground No. 1 and 2 are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue in these grounds is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

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

u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The Id. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under 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 within due date. • A detailed paper book will be filed at the time

DAIRY OWNERS LEAGUE CO OP SOC .LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 50C of the Act and also, the error committed in respect of interest earned on FDR while filing return of income. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly the AO was right in levying penalty u/s 271

SATPATI MACHHIMAR VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI SOCIETY LIMITED,THANE vs. ACIT, PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 80P, the AO made an addition of Rs.5,97,200/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the reason

JUMBO TECHNO SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 6802/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Vs. Acit-3(3) Jumbo Techno Services Ltd. 171, C Wing, Mittal Court Aaykar Bhawan Nariman Point M.K.Road Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aabcj8752C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Aakash Marthak Assessee By Department By Shri S.N.Kabra Date Of Hearing 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2022

u/s. 271(1)(c) on an addition of Rs. 3 lacs being interest not offered to tax. In appeal before the ld.CIT(A), assessee challenged the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits. On the issue of jurisdiction, it was challenged that no specific charge was specified in the notice of penalty. However, ld.CIT(A) referred to ITAT Mumbai

MAITRI HEIGHTS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT/ ACIT,CPC BANGALORE , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c).” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are: assessee being a co-operative housing society earned interest income from its surplus fund parked with co-operative bank claimed exemption of Rs.3,28,915/- under section 80P