ITAT Panaji Judgments — November 2021

THE BELGAUM MERCHANTS CO-OP SOC LTD.,BELGAUM vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAUM

ITA 23/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.

THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS KAMGAR & DR. SHIRGAOKAR SHAIKSHANIK TRUST NOKAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,ATHANI vs ITO, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

ITA 84/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the appellant is a cooperative society registered under the relevant Act and does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it cannot be classified as a cooperative bank and is eligible for the Section 80P(2)(a)(i) exemption.

THE BELGAUM MERCHANTS CO-OP SOC LTD.,BELGAUM vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAUM

ITA 24/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Nov 2021AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.

SHRI VEERSHAIV CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,BELGAUM vs ITO, WARD - 1, NIPANI

ITA 109/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the appellant society was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and did not possess a banking license from the RBI, it should be considered a cooperative society, not a cooperative bank. Therefore, it qualifies for the exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

THE BELGAUM MERCHANTS CO-OP SOC LTD.,BELGAUM vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BELGAUM

ITA 22/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the distinction between short-term and long-term investments is irrelevant for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) if the income is from another cooperative society. The CIT(A)'s finding that interest from investments with other cooperative banks for periods less than one year is not eligible for deduction was reversed.

BELGAUM COAL & COKE CONSUMER CO-OP ASSOCIATION LTD,BELGAUM vs ITO, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

ITA 103/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are also cooperative societies and interest income earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The lower authorities were not justified in denying this claim.

SHRI LAXMI VENKATESH CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs ITO, NIPANI

ITA 90/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society as it is registered under the relevant Act and does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable.

M/S CHOWGULE REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

ITA 3/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Nov 2021AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed based only on investments yielding exempt income. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profits for Section 115JB computation.

THE HUKKERI TALUKA AGRI PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,SANKESHWAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

ITA 30/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income derived by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reasoning of the lower authorities that interest from a cooperative bank is not eligible was found to be incorrect as a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society.

HAVYAKA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

ITA 27/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Nov 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee society, not having a banking license from the RBI, cannot be classified as a cooperative bank. Therefore, Section 80P(4) is not applicable, and the society is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

SIDDAPPA BHIMAPPA KHILARI,BELGAVI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), BELGAVI

ITA 384/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed16 Nov 2021AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's books of account.

OMKAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,KUMTA vs ITO, WARD - 2, KARWAR

ITA 71/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Nov 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and that the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for adjudication.

YALIMUNNOLI PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 66/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence before the CIT(A) to support the Section 80P(2)(d) claim. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

GRAMA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,BELGAUM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), BELAGAVI

ITA 1/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Nov 2021AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from investments held with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI vs SHREE KALIKA URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, MAPUSA

ITA 367/PAN/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Nov 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, as it does not have a banking license from the RBI. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P and the provisions of Section 194A are not applicable.

M/S SIDDHARTH NATURAL FOOD RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 187/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that dairy products are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) only from AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of deduction for AY 2009-10 was correct, but the addition should be restricted to the actual amount claimed.

MAHISHWADAGI GRAMA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,MAHISHWADAGI vs ITO, WARD - 1(4), BELGAUM

ITA 65/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society on investments made with other cooperative banks is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

SMT SUMAN N BHASME,BELGAVI vs ITO, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

ITA 31/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, stating it was unreasonable and unjustified. The tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s finding and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

M/S GOA NATURAL FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,KUNDAIM vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 188/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that an undertaking engaged in dairy products is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) only from AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of deduction for AY 2009-10 was correct, but the addition should be restricted to the actual claim made by the assessee.