INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank instead of Cooperative Society and overlooking the fact that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed in the previous years including AY 2017-18.\n2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in denying deduction u/s 80P(2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDI MARYADIT, VASAI

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.918/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.2441/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.917/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra- 400604. 2

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

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)

68,455/- M/s. Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Rs.7,18,345/- M/s. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd Rs. 7,60,308/- Total Rs. 38,47,108/- Less: Interest on Savings/ Non-Cooperative Banks Rs. 1,01,407/- Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) Rs. 37,45,701/- Learned AO, after making adjustment of an interest on savings

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)

68,455/- M/s. Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Rs.7,18,345/- M/s. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd Rs. 7,60,308/- Total Rs. 38,47,108/- Less: Interest on Savings/ Non-Cooperative Banks Rs. 1,01,407/- Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) Rs. 37,45,701/- Learned AO, after making adjustment of an interest on savings

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 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

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 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

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 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

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 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

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 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

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should not be disallowed. After hearing the case of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under Section 80P(2

MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik V. Ito – Ward – 22(2)(1) Shikshk Sahakari Pat Sanstha Piramal Chambers Maryadit (Cooperative Credit Society) Mumbai - 400012 201/202 Anish Tower Senapati Bapat Marg Matunga (W), Mumbai Pan: Aaaam1865G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Smit Sheth Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department Represented By :

68 & 69/Bang/2023 dated 12.05.2023 and M/s. Karinje Service Co-operative Society Taccode Ltd., v. ITO in ITA No. 955/Bang/2022 dated 02.02.2023. 11. In the rejoinder, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P(2

NAND BHUVAN IND PRIMISES CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2 M/s. Nand Bhuvan IND Premises Co Op Soc Ltd. 2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 17.10.2017 and declaring total income of Rs.1,68,010/- , has also claimed the deduction of Rs.16

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

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

section 80P without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the assessment year

ADARSH SEVA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68.” 3. The issue arising in ground no. 1, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to denial of deduction claimed under section 80P(2

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

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

section 80P without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the assessment year

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

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

section 80P without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal." 4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the assessment year

HAFFKINE CO-OP CREDIT SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-20(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. HAFFKINE CO-OP CREDIT SOC LTD. 7. Assessee claimed further deduction of Rs. 8,68