THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. 6. Before us, the appellant has submitted the detailed submissions contained in page 6 to 21 of paper book, which are reproduced below for clear understanding of the gamut of the dispute. 6.1 With above short summary of the case, Appellant would humbly like to submit the following for your kind consideration : Sr.No

AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condonation of delay and decided appeal on merits, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,25,000/- as interest income on investments of Rs.1,75,00,000/- though the same were not received during the previous year

JALSAMPDA KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , WARDHA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryjalsampda Karmchari Ito, Ward-2, Wardha. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Wardha, 1, Dr. Vs. Adyalkar Bhavan, Arvi Road, Shivaji Square, Wardha-442001 Pan: Aaaaw 0478 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 4. In this case, the Assessee is a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities to its members, consisting of only employees of Irrigation department of Maharashtra State in Wardha District. The Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 01/11/2017 and declaring total income at Rs. NIL, claimed the deduction under Chapter

M/S. NEERI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an Employee’s Co–operative Credit Society for the employees working at National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). For the year under consideration, the assessee Society filed

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

B. That the Assessee has filed appeal on 06 September 2024. Thus, there has been a delay of 432 days in filing the Appeal by the Assessee. Sufficient Cause explaining the delay in filing the Appeal C. That, the Assessee could not represent his case before learned CIT(A). The notices were sent to email-id amohril@gmail.com which belonged

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,TUMSAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHANDARA, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay being minor, the same is hereby condoned. 4. The short issue that we need to adjudication relates to addition under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest income earned from Nationalised Bank by treating it as income from other sources. 5. The assessee is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co– operative Societies

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation of delay is thus unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed