Pr.CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.

395 ITR 661Reported decision#20841 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing Pr.CIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.

THE ATHANI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 90/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…t Co-op. Ltd. (supra). The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. (supra) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., 395 ITR 661 held that no application exemption under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act by observing as under :- “9. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA No.713/PUN/2016, dated 9-4-2019) decided the question of availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by noticing…

SHRI SHRIDHARSWAMY CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 2(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…t Co-op. Ltd. (supra). The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. (supra) after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., 395 ITR 661 held that no application exemption under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act by observing as under :- “9. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs. The Pr.CIT (ITA No.713/PUN/2016, dated 9-4- 2019) decided the question of availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by noticing…

M/S. KOTEKAR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,MANGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), MANGALURU

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

ITA 1232/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kotekar Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, The Income Tax Officer, 5-4(5), Raitha Sadana, Ward – 2(4), Beeri, Kotekar, Mangalore. Mangalore – 575 022. Vs. Pan: Aaaak2844D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth .G.S, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mangaluru On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect In Sl.No. Grounds Of Appeal Rs. A) The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As These Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S 1. Case. B) The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs.82,17,400/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.1,99,640/- Under The Facts & Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth .G.S, CA

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…abad dated 8th September, 2017. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Totgars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 661 dismissed the appeal filed by assessee. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that though assessee is a co- operative society and carries on the business of providing credit facility to its members, the interest earned from the institutions cannot be allowed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) disallowed the provision made for…

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

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

ITA 65/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.65/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahishwadagi Grama Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Mahishwadagi, Tal. Athani, Dist. Belagavi- 591304. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaam0355P बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Belgaum. Assessee By : Shri Chetan Chougule Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gulbarga (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Overlooked The Facts Of The Case & Not Taken Into Account The Submissions Given By The Appellant With Respect To Interest Received From Mandatory Statutory Deposits Kept With District Central Bank & Also Dividend Received From Such Mandatory Investments & Considered Them As Income From Other Sources & Also Interest Received From Savings Bank A/C Is Also Considered As Income From Other Sources, Instead Of Considering The Same As Income Attributable To Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Denied The Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Because, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Denying The Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Because The Learned Assessing Officer Has Overlooked The Facts Of The Case With Respect To Interest Received From Mandatory Statutory Deposits Kept With District Central Bank & Also Dividend Received From Such Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ChouguleFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)