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 367,181 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Totagars

Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co Op Marketing Society, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co-Op Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Marketing Society Ltd., Mysore. K. R. Pet, K. R. Pet Taluk, Mandya 571 426. Pan : Aaaak 4566 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda H, Fca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Shankar Gowda H, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

…hing to do with deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 9. The CIT, after considering submissions made by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the later decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 395 ITR 611(Karn), the Hon’ble Page 4 of 13 Court has explained its earlier decision and held that interest received on deposits with Co-operative Bank is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT accordingly directed that the deduction allowed should be withdrawn. 10. An order passed contrary to a decision of the Hon’ble Juris…

Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Latur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Aurangabad

ITA 1249/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assessment Year :2013-14 Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P Niwada, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ……….Appellant Pan No. Aaaar1864N V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2, Aurangabad ……… Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Ladda, A.R Department By : Shri Kalika Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-01-2022 Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Aurangabad, Dated 27.03.2018 Under Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 07/03/2016. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: “1. The Notice Issued U/S 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2, Aurangabad & The Order Passed U/S 263 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Passing The Order U/S 263, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 3. The Pr. Cit-2 Erred In Holding That Assessee Not Eligible For Deduction Of Rs. 75,38,534 U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income-Tax Act & Further Erred In Setting Aside The Issue To The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 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…