MYSTIQUE ROSE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO -22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

u/s 80P(2)(d). 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax officer 22(2)(3) („learned AO‟) erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 3,80,214 claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of the learned

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 80P(4) is applicable in assessee‟s case and disallowed assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 80P(4) is applicable in assessee‟s case and disallowed assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 80P(4) is applicable in assessee‟s case and disallowed assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 56,64,971/– u/s. 80P. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2

EL CID CO .OP.HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 80P(2)(d) of the I-T Act. In the present case, the assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 14,26,317/- from such co- operative bank. In view of the above discussion, the deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2) (d) of the Act of Rs. 14,26,317/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income

ITO 24 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S OBEROI SPRING CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus grounds of appeal raised by appellant are allowed. 4.3 Ground number 4 & 5 refers to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T Act 1961. Since the AO has not imposed penalty, this ground of appeal filed by the appellant is premature and accordingly the same is dismissed