M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.1,68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDI MARYADIT, VASAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are\nallowed

section 80P(2)(d).\nAccordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and\naccordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68