Pr. CIT v. Totagars

395 ITR 611High Court2017#39 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Totagars authority for?

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from surplus deposits or investments held with a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

1,074

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Totagars · 395 ITR 611 · Section 80P(2)(d) · cooperative society · interest income · cooperative bank · deduction · deposits · investments · eligibility 80P

Also reported as

297 CTR 158

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(4)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 250Section 2(19)Section 56

Issues it is cited on

section 80(2)(d)section 2(19)section 80p(4)section 80p(1)section 80p(2)(a)(iii)section 80p(2)(c)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 80p(2)(d)section 194a(3)(v)section 80p(2)section 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(a)(i)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Totagars

M/S. Manjunatheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1155/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Manjunatheshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Income Tax No. 20, 3Rd Main, Officer, 2Nd Block, Ward – 6(2)(2), Ring Road, Bangalore. Nandini Layout, Vs. Bangalore – 560 096. Pan: Aakas1721M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Chaithanya V Mudurubettu
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…g officer’s order of Rs.58,25,920/- on its surplus funds. The assessing officer discussing the issue and relying on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of PCIT vs. The Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611 and held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction on the interest income earned from its investments kept with co-operative banks / banks. Accordingly, he restricted the deduction to the extent of Rs.51,62,212/-. He further noted that the assessee has earned Rs. 97,329/- from non-members on account of e-stamping services and it was also ad…

Sumantha Pathina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Kondlahalli vs. Income Tax Officer, Chitradurga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 158/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sumantha Pathina Souharda Vs. Ito, Sahakari Niyamita, Medehalli. Sahakari Niyamitha R, Kondlahalli, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga – 577 529, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 7472 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suhas K, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Suhas K, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…tled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act since the same is to be assessed as “Income from Other Sources”. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). The view taken by the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A). 8. Further, the assessee had claimed interest received from co-operative bank as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act (FD interest from SUCO Co- operative Bank of Rs.3,14,544/-). The AO held that the interest income received from Co-operative Bank is not entitled to deduc…

Loknete Gopinathraoji Munde, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 94/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Although, in all fairness, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), as had been relied upon by the ld. D.R before us, had held, that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d); but then, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in t…

No- 9481 Karadivavi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Triupur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2). Tirupur, Tirupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1562/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…neous Income, the interest income on funds not required for business purpose actually amounting to Rs. 37,26,054/- is to be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka) that a Cooperative Society would not be entitled to claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income from deposits made in Cooperative banks. Accordingly addition on this ground to the tune of Rs. 37,26,054/- is hereby sustained (amount mentioned by AO in his order Rs. 48,370/- has been pointed out by appellant to be act…

Machina Service Co-Op. Society Limited, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 and on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 4. Aggrieved by the part disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2020-21. Before the FAA, it was contended that assessee as per section 28 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, was required mandatorily…

Machina Service Co-Op. Society Ltd., Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

ITA 124/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for
Section 250Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 and on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 4. Aggrieved by the part disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act, assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2020-21. Before the FAA, it was contended that assessee as per section 28 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, was required mandatorily…

Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Hadapsar Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 1046/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1045 & 1046/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Sr No. 14, Satyaraj Complex, Hadapsar, Pune-411028 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…co-operative banks has denied the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by pressing into service the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] and ‘COC Vs Dilip Kumar’ reported in 9 SCC 1 (SC). 3.2 Insofar as ITA No 1046/PUN/2023 i.e. AY 2020-21 is concerned, the assessment was framed denying the u/s 80P(2) of the Act deduction claimed against interest income of ₹39,01,621/- which was accrued/earned form Fixed/Term deposit investment held various co-operative banks. ITAT-Pune Page 2…

Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Hadapsar Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14 (1) Pune, Pune

Appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 1045/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1045 & 1046/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Sr No. 14, Satyaraj Complex, Hadapsar, Pune-411028 Pan: Aaaak3735D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…co-operative banks has denied the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as well u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act by pressing into service the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] and ‘COC Vs Dilip Kumar’ reported in 9 SCC 1 (SC). 3.2 Insofar as ITA No 1046/PUN/2023 i.e. AY 2020-21 is concerned, the assessment was framed denying the u/s 80P(2) of the Act deduction claimed against interest income of ₹39,01,621/- which was accrued/earned form Fixed/Term deposit investment held various co-operative banks. ITAT-Pune Page 2…

Konkan Education Soc. Sevaksahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel

The appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 47/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 046 & 047/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Giteesh Kalyani through virtual [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…fidence, in the event the Ld. NFAC echoed the view of Ld. AO and countenanced the denial by placing strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] 3.5 Aggrieved by the aforestated denial and the appellant assessee came in appeal alleging that both the tax authorities erred in law and facts in denying the assessee society the claim of deduction made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in-spite of catena of binding judicial precedents of this Tribunal. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 7 Konkan Education Society…

Konkan Education Soc. Sevakshakari Patpedhi Ltd, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel

The appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED

ITA 46/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 046 & 047/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Giteesh Kalyani through virtual [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…fidence, in the event the Ld. NFAC echoed the view of Ld. AO and countenanced the denial by placing strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in ‘PCIT Vs Totagars Co-op. Sale Society’ reported in 83 taxmann.com 140 [Equi: 395 ITR 611] 3.5 Aggrieved by the aforestated denial and the appellant assessee came in appeal alleging that both the tax authorities erred in law and facts in denying the assessee society the claim of deduction made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in-spite of catena of binding judicial precedents of this Tribunal. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 7 Konkan Education Society…

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…n the on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 and the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act nor under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, with regard to the alternative claim of the as…

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…n the on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Totgar’s Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 and the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act nor under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, with regard to the alternative claim of the as…

M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd Guruvayanakere, Belthangady vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1006/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward –1, 1 ‘Jeshta’ Uppinangady Road, Puttur. Guruvayanakere, Belthangady – 574 217. Pan : Aabas 3237 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ITO reported in (2010) 322 ITR 283 held that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Further, the AO relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka) and held that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Page 3 of 8 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the view that assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the…

Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. Mumbai-W-91, Vashi Navimumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, It-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3Rd Floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Aacas 6296 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar ShindeFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sangam Sahakari Patpedhi Mumbai-W-91, Maryaditnagari, Navi Mumbai, IT-Office, Vashi Railway Station Office No. 227, Central Facility Vs. Building Navi Mumbai-400703. Building, 3rd floor, Sector-19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. PAN NO. AACAS 6296 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vijay Kumar Shinde Revenue by : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date of pronouncement : 31/01/2024 ORDE…

Sankalp Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

…on under Sec. 80P(2) (d) on the interest income on the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may observe that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d). At the same time, we find, that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case…

Satara Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1446/PUN/2023[20018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1446/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satara Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari The Pcit-3, Pune. Patpedhi Maryadit, Vs 161/B/4, Zilla Gramsevak . Bhavan, Shahunagar, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aacas8773K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2024

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Although, in all fairness, we may herein observe that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars co-operative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), as had been relied upon by the ld. D.R before us, had held, that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d); but then, the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in t…

Sri Bhyraveshwara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 855/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80p

…eduction was claimed u/s. 80P. After considering various submissions of the assessee, the Ld.AO dismissed the claim of assessee by following the ratio of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Totagars cooperative Sale Society reported in (2017) 395 ITR 611 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the act. On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the disallowance made by the Ld.AO was upheld without considering the documents filed by the assessee. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before thi…

Vande Matharam Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Limited, Moodbidri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Mangalore

ITA 968/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…nk, the same is not allowable for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In this context, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Sales Society reported in 395 ITR 611 (Karnataka). 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the case laws relied on, written submissions filed before the CIT(A), etc. The learned AR's limited contention was that if the amount of interest income that is received from SCDCC Bank is to be assessed as…

The Ideal Homes Co-Operative Building Society Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has discussed the issue in detail and also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society dated 16.06.2017 reported in 395 ITR 611 (Kar). He also discussed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society 322 ITR 283 (SC) and judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI v. CIT, 389 ITR 578 (Guj) and various other judgments. He further submitted that in the case of Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Developme…

The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal vs. Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari My., Byhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 71/IND/2023[20178-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

Section 80P(2)(d)

…CO No.3/Ind/2023 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari My.. the investments/deposits parked with a co-operative bank. Although, in all fairness, we may observe that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Karn), had concluded that a co-operative society would not be entitled to claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d). At the same time, we find, that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 392 ITR 74 (Karn) and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case…