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)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

GOLDEN SQUARE CHS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assesee are allowed

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 572 & 573/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Golden Square Chsltd., Vs. Ito – 22(1)(5),Roomno. Cst Road, Sunder Nagar 323,3Rdfloor,Piramal Kalina, Santicruz (E) Chamber,Lalbaug, Mumbai. 400098 Parel, Mumbai.400012 Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag2527M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kunal Lunawat & Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Chandekar.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The Assessee Against The Different Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

section 80P(4) of the I.T. Act, 1960. In view of above, deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is not available to the assessee. Further, no such claim i.e. claim of "concept of mutuality" or "deduction u/s 80P" has been made in return of income. In view of above, an amount of Rs. 11,95,223/i.e. Rs. 14,72,049 Rs.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

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