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 Section 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 Section

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)(d

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

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) but denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d

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) but denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d

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

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

68,136 and income\nfrom other sources at Rs.2,13,246. The AO while completing the assessment\nallowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c) but denied the\ndeduction under section 80P(2)(d

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

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

In the result, the appeal for both the AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 are\nallowed

d) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (the Act) towards interest received from deposits held by the assessee\nwith co-operative banks.\n2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the operation and\nmaintenance of housing society. The assessee filed the return of income for AY\n2020-21 on 30.12.2020 declaring a total income of Rs. 2

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

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d

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)(a) as well as under Section 80P(2)(d

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 :

d) instead of section 80P(2)(a)(i) is erroneous and bad in law. 3. The action of the learned CIT (A) by not considering the ITAT, Mumbai order already decided in favour of the Appellant in A.Y.2014- 15 on the same matter is erroneous and bad in law. 4. The action of the learned CIT (A) in disallowing

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

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

d) of the Income Tax Mit Niketan A CHS Ltd. Act, 1961 (the Act) towards interest received from deposits held by the assessee with co-operative banks. 2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the operation and maintenance of housing society. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 30.12.2020 declaring a total

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Page No. 2 Ashok Tower “D" Co. Op. Housing Society Limited 4. In support of his contentions Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Wanka vivadh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 68