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

68,136 and income from other sources at Rs.2,13,246. The AO while completing the assessment allowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c

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

68,136 and income from other sources at Rs.2,13,246. The AO while completing the assessment allowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c

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

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

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

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and assessed the total income

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) is having two segments one is earned from the members and other is the deposits made with

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

68,010/- , has also claimed the deduction of Rs.16,31,114/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act on account of interest income earned from Mumbai District Co-op. Bank, Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank, Saraswat Co-op. Bank. Cosmos Co-op. Bank and Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank. 3. The Assessing Officer (in short “the AO”) vide order dated

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

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 2016-17:- “1. On the facts

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)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra

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

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 2016-17:- “1. On the facts

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

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 2016-17:- “1. On the facts

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

C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range-20(2)(2). Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find that

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

C. Green Cooperative Housing and Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 1343/Mum/2017, dated 31.03.2017 (iii) Marvwanjee Cama Park Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO-Range-20(2)(2). Mumbai (ITA No. 6139/Mum/2014, dated 27.09.2017. (iv). Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Pemises Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, 21(2)(1), Mumbai. We further find that

ASHOK TOWER "D" CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashok Tower “D" Co. Op. Housing V. Ito - Ward - 20[1][2] Society Limited Piramal Chambers Cs No. 63/74/07, Parel Sewri Division Parel, Mumbai -400012 Dr. B. A. Road, Parel Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aadaa0962B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupenra Shah Department Represented By : Shri R.R. Makwana

c). 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that assessee Society has made investments as per the statutory requirements governing the Society. Ld.AR submitted that the assessee co-operative Housing society does not fall within the restriction placed in sub-section (4) of section 80P

MIT NIKETAN A CHS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

68,075/- for AY 2021-22. The said claim has made by the assessee towards interest received from co-operative bank. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee also did not respond to the notices served by the CIT(A). Accordingly

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

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 2016-17:- ―1. On the facts

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

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 2016-17:- ―1. On the facts