HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowance of claims in the return of income filed under section 139(4) or in response to 142(1)is not made under section 80A(5) of the IT Act 1961. The claim under section 80P

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowance of claims in the return of income filed under section 139(4) or in response to 142(1)is not made under section 80A(5) of the IT Act 1961. The claim under section 80P

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowance of claims in the return of income filed under section 139(4) or in response to 142(1)is not made under section 80A(5) of the IT Act 1961. The claim under section 80P

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

disallowance of claims in the return of income filed\nunder section 139(4) or in response to 142(1)is not made under section\n80A(5) of the IT Act 1961. The claim under section 80P

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

80P. Accordingly this disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(va) is upheld, but the amount disallowed

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") at ` 77,91,410, disallowing deduction under Chapter–VIA at ` 77,91,410, on the ground of inconsistency in filing of Schedule–VIA. Accordingly, in response to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee furnished requisite details and documents electronically. The assessee-society, for the year under

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") at ` 77,91,410, disallowing deduction under Chapter–VIA at ` 77,91,410, on the ground of inconsistency in filing of Schedule–VIA. Accordingly, in response to the notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee furnished requisite details and documents electronically. The assessee-society, for the year under

SHRI SAIBABA BAHUUDDESHIYA NAGRIK CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (3)(4), NAGPUR

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid\ndirections

disallowed this deduction, treating the interest as income from other sources. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks or nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act, provided the funds

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

1,73,16,473/–) which were claimed on account of interest/ dividend income earned from co-operative Banks being exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However the Ld. Commissioner allowed such deduction/exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and consequently deleted the said additions. And therefore the Revenue Department being aggrieved has preferred this appeal, challenging

BHATADI OPENCAST KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ,BHATADI,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income received from the Co-operative Banks. The assessee is a 3 ITA.No. 89/NAG/2025 registered Co-operative Housing Society and during the assessment year 2018-19 earned interest income of Rs. 50,39,861 from the investments made in various Co-operative Banks. 9. Before

JAI KONDESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI BADNERAPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income received from the Co-operative Banks. The assessee is a registered Co-operative Housing Society and during the assessment year 2018-19 earned interest income of Rs. 50,39,861 from the investments made in various Co-operative Banks. 9. Before proceeding further

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

section 80P of the Act, are reproduced below:– ―5.0 Ground No. 1: For the year under consideration the society has received an amount of Rs. 1,24,04,174/- as interest income from the funds parked with nationalized banks and co-operative banks. The assessing Officer disallowed

THE GREEN CITY NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed by the AO and balance deduction of Rs.8,06,857/- has been allowed by the AO u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of Act. Appellant has claimed relief u/s 57 of Act as income has been assessed as income from other sources. However, AO has not given the working of proportionate interest expenses against the Short Term Deposits with Union

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

1,15,00,000 with The Khamgaon Urban Co–operative Bank and earned interest therefrom which was claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act. As per scrutiny selection reasons, the assessee has shown high liabilities in Balance Sheet as compared to low income/receipts declared in the income tax return of income. The assessee has shown 'Deposits

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

Section under which the deduction is claimed Rs. 1. 80P(2)(a)(i) 73,64,124 2 u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) 36,239 TOTAL Rs. 74,00,363 During the course of the Assessment proceeding, Learned Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S VINAYAK NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT. SANSTHA,BHANDARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

1. That the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 are illegal, erroneous and perverse thus needs to be quashed. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal ex- parte without appreciating that allowability of the provisions of Section 80P in view

DOCTOR PUNJABRAO DESHMUKH KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH KARAMCHARI PAT SANSTHA MRYAT ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

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

disallowed the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80P in its entirety amounting to Rs.1,72,19,933/- at the threshold itself in view of provisions of section 80AC of the Act. The appellant has also challenged the legality of the AO's action by raising the first three grounds of appeal, viz. Ground Nos. 1

RAJARSHI SHAHU MULTISTATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,,BULDHANA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in denying and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the denial of benefit of deduction under section 80P, despite the same being beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny and consequently the denial of benefit of deduction under section 80P