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 :

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

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

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

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

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80AC of the Act. 4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the assessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No. BOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/- which

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80AC of the Act. 4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the assessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No. BOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/- which

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80AC of the Act. 4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the assessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No. BOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/- which

VISSANJI A 1 FRIENDS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80AC of the Act. 4. In the above backdrop, we take note of the facts relevant to the assessee. Assessee is a cooperative housing society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with registration No. BOM/HSG/FN/8793. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 reporting total income at Rs.4,86,670/- which

VILE PARLE MODEL COOP HSG SOC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal in ITA number 175/M/2024 for assessment year 2012 – 13 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 176/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 177/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vile Parle Model Cooperative Vs. Acit, Housing Society Ltd. Ward-25(3)(5) A-7, Disha, Gulmohar Kautilya Bhavan Cross Road, 7 Jvpd Bandra Kurla Scheme, Mumbai Complex, Bandra Maharashtra-400 049. East Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aaajv0060B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devenra Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

80P (2) (d) of Rs. 909,014 was not granted. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT – A wherein the claim of the assessee was not accepted and the order of the central processing Centre was confirmed holding that interest income on from cooperative banks are exempt and the assessee’s investment is not with cooperative banks. Therefore assessee