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

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.

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 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

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

4) of the Act provides that the Section is not applicable to income earned by the Appellant from a cooperative bank. 2. Penalty proceedings are bad in law 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.“ 6. The learned Authorized Representative

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

4) of the Act even though without any amendment in Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent assessee for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The only exception is that of a primary agricultural credit society. The depository Kanara District 8 EL CID CO OP Housing Society

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. The assessee went in appeal before learned CIT(A) who deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c), vide appellate order dated 03.06.2014, by holding as under:- “ 3.7 The facts of the case and submission of the Ld. A.R have been considered accordingly. The facts are not in dispute. The interest income has been considered

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

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)

4 to Section 271(1). The FAA also rejected the reliance placed by the assesse on the decision in the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (327 ITR 543) by distinguishing that in the said case, the income was assessed as per provisions of MAT u/s.115JB and not as per the normal provisions of the Act. Finally, the FAA confirmed

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(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Being

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)

4. Brief facts of the case are that in this case AO has made 100% disallowance for bogus purchases without doubting the sales. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld.CIT(A) has granted a part relief. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act was also levied, which was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). Assessee has also raised a ground before ld.CIT

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

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

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

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

MEHERBAD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Meherbad Co-Operative Acit-19(2) Housing Society Ltd, Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo, 1/594, Meherabad, Bhulabai Mumbai - 400007 Desai Road, Warden Road, Mumbai – 400026

penalty u/s 271(1) (c).” ITA No.2418/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 2 Meherbad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs.ACIT-19(2) 2. Briefly stated, the assessee a co-operative housing society had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 28.09.2015, declaring an income of Rs.25,42,220/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed