SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment order passed t order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 03.12.2019 on 03.12.2019, denied the deduction u/s 80P the deduction u/s 80P(2

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of interest income earned by the assessee from the co- operative banks. All these appeals have identical facts. Therefore, disposed off by this common order. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of interest income earned by the assessee from the co- operative banks. All these appeals have identical facts. Therefore, disposed off by this common order. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of interest income earned by the assessee from the co- operative banks. All these appeals have identical facts. Therefore, disposed off by this common order. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of interest income earned by the assessee from the co- operative banks. All these appeals have identical facts. Therefore, disposed off by this common order. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 80P(2)(a) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of interest income earned by the assessee from the co- operative banks. All these appeals have identical facts. Therefore, disposed off by this common order. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2013-14:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

MAHIM VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD.,,THANE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

80P (2) of the Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Karnataka High Court has discussed the provisions of section BOP as a whole and held that it is a character and nature of income which determines the taxability or exemption from taxability. In these cases the surplus fund which was not required

SANJAY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,THANE vs. THE PR. COMM OF INCOME TAX 1, THANE

In the result we allow the ground no

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

80P (2) of the Act would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Karnataka High Court has discussed the provisions of section BOP as a whole and held that it is a character and nature of income which determines the taxability or exemption from taxability. In these cases, the surplus fund which

BHOOMI CLASSIC CO-OP HSG.SOC.LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-30(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhoomi Classic Co-Op Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 436, 4Th बनाम/ Cts No. 1406, Link Floor, Kautilya Vs. Road, Opp Sabkuch Bhavan, C-41 To C- Market, Malad (West) 43, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai- 400064. Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaab4452G (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

reassessment and the Honorable Court has not decided on merit. Hence, the ratio cannot be applicable to the facts of the appellant. Therefore, order of Tribunal for earlier year may be followed and the order of NFAC may be set aside and direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to grant the relief u/s. 80P (2)(d) as claimed

TMT EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THANE -1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tmt Employees Co-Operative Credit Ito 3(4) Society Ltd., Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road Shop No. 10, Prashaskiya Bhavan, Vs. No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Thane M P (Tmt) Employees Ccs, Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Wagle Estate Aagar, Thane-400604. Pan No. Aaeat 4545 J Appellant Respondent

Section 80P(2)(d) made in the original reassessment order. As no appeal was filed by the assessee original reassessment

VADASINOR PRAGATI SAMAJ CO-OP.CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -18 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Vadasinor Pragati Samaj Principal Commissioner Of Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Income Tax – 18 45/49, 1St Floor, Babu Genu Road, Vs. Mumbai. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aaaav6905G Appellant Respondent

reassess the income of the appellant by excluding the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 80P(2)( d) of Rs. 12,87,629/- may be deleted. 2. Facts in brief as gathered from the orders of lower authorities are that assessee is a Co-operative Society, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 27.09.2014 declaring

MIDDLE INCOME GROUP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment order be annulled. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GUOUND NO. 1 AND 2, GROUND NO. 3: ADDITION OF RS. 139,16.46.972/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL On the facts and ill the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging to tax an amount

MIG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY GROUP- II LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

2 is decided in favour of the assessee. 6.As we have decided the issue on merits,so we are not dealing with technical Grounds raised by the assessee with regard to re-opening of the assessment. 7.Ground No.3 is alternate Ground to Ground No.1 and 2.The assessee has argued that FAA had not allowed it the option of substituting