SRI BHUVANESHWARI VIVIDODDHESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA ,GANGAVATHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KOPPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 979/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court judgment. However, the Assessing Officer needs to verify other conditions for eligibility.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative society, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P. The appeal was filed with a delay of 9 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, and if so, whether further verification of other conditions is required by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 2(19)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 09.09.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 18/02/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2024-25/1073401339(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dated 18-02-2025. The appeal is delayed by 9 days.

3.

We have considered the petition for condonation of delay. The delay is only 9 days. The assessee explained the reasons, which are genuine and not deliberate. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji (167 ITR 471), the delay is condoned.

4.

Coming to the issue on merits, the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that such societies are not covered by section 2(19) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the denial of the deduction under section 80P of the Act.

5.

We note that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. vs. Government of India & Others [2020] 122 taxmann.com 37 has held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 also fall within the meaning of "co-operative society" under section 2(19) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, they are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act. This judgment is binding on the tax authorities.

5.1 Following the binding judgment, we hold that the assessee is entitled in law to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, we also observe that the Assessing Officer has not verified whether the assessee satisfies the other conditions prescribed under section 80P of the Act, such as the nature of income and activities carried on. These conditions are factual and must be verified before granting the deduction at the level of the AO. Therefore, while allowing the appeal in favour of the . assessee, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify these other factual aspects in accordance with law and grant deduction u/s 80P if the assessee is found eligible on facts. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →