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 towards income from\nbusiness. The AO also made an addition under section 69A towards cash deposited\nduring the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.60,61,500/-.\n4.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\nheld that the AO is not correct in making addition by reallocating the expenses\nthereby making

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

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE JACKSON COOP CREDIT SOCIETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF WESTERN RAILWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter\nreferred to as “the Act"] dated 24.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein\nthe assessment order dated 5th April 2021 passed by AO was set aside\nand the addition made u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was deleted.\n2. The facts in brief are that, the assessee

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 :

VI-A iii. High Creditors / Liabilities iv. High Interest expenditure / finance costs v. Investments / Advances / Loans 3. In response, Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted the relevant information from time to time and also requested for video conference. In Video Conference, the Ld.AR of the assessee reiterated the same as stated in his submissions filed through ITBA portal. 4. After

TECHNOPOLIS PREMISES CO-OP.SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 25 , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodtechnopolis Premises Co-Operative Society Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, Limited, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Room No. 241, 2Nd Floor, G-Block, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai 400 093. Mumbai – 400 051

68,951/- 5. Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank 5,497/- Claimed deduction u/s 80P (-)50,000/- Total Interest 56,16,242/- The controversy involved in the present case revolves around the aspect that as to whether the interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with the co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Sec. 80P

SAMATA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhry, Jm Samata Co-Operative Dy. Commissioner Of Housing Society Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-26(1) Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Gr. Floor, Jagannath Vs. Bhosale Marg, Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Gpo, Nariman Point S.O., Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas5219D

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Pertinently, the Appellant is a Cooperative Housing Society and not a Cooperative Bank. f. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has seriously erred by relying on the decision Totgar Co-operative Sale Samata Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; A.Y.2021-22 Society V/s. Income Tax Officer [(2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC)] which

THE WOODLAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

VI-A can only be made in terms of sub-\nclause (v) of clause (a) to Section 143(1), and such disallowance is\nlegally sustainable only where the return of income has been filed\nbeyond the due date specified under Section 139(1). The Tribunal\nfurther held that where the return is filed within the prescribed\ntime

COLABA SANGITA CO-OP HSG LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68[***]\nan incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any\ninformation in the return;\n[(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which\nset off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified\nunder sub-section (1) of section 139;\n(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase

PARIJAT CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 28 2 1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,337/-. Parijat Coop Credit Society Ltd., AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 5.1. In the course of assessment, assessee was asked to explain about its claim of deduction u/s.80P(chapter VI-A), assessee made its detailed submission by placing reliance on several judicial precedents including that of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

THE PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. The assessee is a co-operative credit society and filed the return of income for AY 2019-20 on 29.07.2020 declaring a total income of Nil after claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act whereby the deduction claimed by the assessee under section

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

VI to the Companies Act, 1956 an amount could be first included in the list of sundry debtors/loans and then deducted from the list as "provision for doubtful debts". However, these are matters of Presentation of Provisions for doubtful debts even under the Companies Act and have nothing to do with taxability under the Income-tax Act. One more aspect

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but would also be applicable to all\nbanks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.\n\n38. From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

VI to the Companies Act, 1956 an amount could be first included in the list of\nsundry debtors/loans and then deducted from the list as \"provision for doubtful debts\".\nHowever, these are matters of Presentation of Provisions for doubtful debts even under\nthe Companies Act and have nothing to do with taxability under the Income-tax Act.\nOne more aspect

NA vs. ANDESH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,MUMBAIVS.ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 4 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Navsandesh Sahakari Patpedhi Income Tax Officer, Maryadit, Chawl No. 13/2,3,4, Vs. Ward-21(2)(4), N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Room No. 109, First Floor, Mumbai – 400 013 Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aadfn6130H (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Ravindra Naik, A.R Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2021

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance

PARIJAT CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28 2 1, VASHI

68,337/-.\n5\nITA Nos.6392 and 6393/Mum/2024\nParijat Coop Credit Society Ltd., AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19\n5. 1. In the course of assessment, assessee was asked to explain about\nits claim of deduction u/s.80P(chapter VI-A), assessee made its detailed\nsubmission by placing reliance on several judicial precedents including\nthat of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

68,104/-in terms\nof section 14A of the Act.\n6.9 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) firstly, rejected the\ncontention of the assessee that Assessing Officer has not passed a\nspeaking order for recording his dissatisfaction on the claim of the\nassessee of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Secondly,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) rejected

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 10(34)\nof the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income\nand is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of\nthe Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between\ntaxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock\n\nM/s