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 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) 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

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)(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

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

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

VEER JIJAMATA CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriveer Jijamata Co Op. Credit Vs. Cit(A) Ward 20(3)(1), Society Ltd. Piramal Chamber, 1/10 Ameher Market Bldg., Mumbai-4000012 B A Ambedkar Road, V. J. B. Udyan S. O., Mumbai-400027 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaav5873D Appellant .. Respondent

d) of Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Credit Co-operative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed return declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs. 53,20,424/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny