State Bank Of India v. CIT

389 ITR 578High Court2016#60 most cited

What is State Bank Of India v. CIT authority for?

Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

817

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State Bank of India v CIT · Section 80P(2)(a)(i) · Section 80P(2)(d) · cooperative society · investment income · exemption · short-term deposits · securities · surplus funds · not business income

Also reported as

72 Taxmann.com 64241 Taxmann 163

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 143(3)Section 80P(4)Section 80PSection 263Section 250Section 2(19)

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing State Bank Of India v. CIT

M/S. Gnanaganga Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sanga Niyamita, Mysore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 578/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Vilas V.Shinde, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 8…

M/S. Gnanaganga Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sanga Niyamita, Mysore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 577/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Vilas V.Shinde, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 8…

Baroda Citizen Community Co. Op. Credit Scoiety Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 996/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 996 & 1051/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Baroda Citizen Community Co-Op. Credit I.T.O, Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2)(2), 203, 2Nd Floor, Baroda. Ivory Terrace, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)

…society from the non-members that will not be subject to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India versus CIT reported in 72 Taxmann.com 64 wherein it was held as under: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also justified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/-respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.1 In view of the above, it is only the interest derived from…

Baroda Citizen Community Co. Op. Credit Scoiety Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partially allowed

ITA 1051/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 996 & 1051/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Baroda Citizen Community Co-Op. Credit I.T.O, Society Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2)(2), 203, 2Nd Floor, Baroda. Ivory Terrace, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara.

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80P(2)(a)

…society from the non-members that will not be subject to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India versus CIT reported in 72 Taxmann.com 64 wherein it was held as under: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also justified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/-respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.1 In view of the above, it is only the interest derived from…

Anklav Mercantile Co.-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1089/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1089/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 The Anklav Mercantile Co-Op Credit D.C.I.T., Society Ltd., Vs. Circle-1(3), Near Bus Stand, Vadodara. Swati Shopping Center, Anklav-388510. Pan: Aaaat2888A

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…society from the non-members that will not be subject to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India versus CIT reported in 72 Taxmann.com 64 wherein it was held as under: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also justified in holding that interest income of Rs.16,14,579/- and Rs.32,83,410/-respectively on deposits placed with State Bank of India was not exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.1 In view of the above, it is only the interest derived from…

M/S. Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita, Hagaribommanahalli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburgi

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

ITA 1725/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 8…

M/S. Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita, Hosapete vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburgi

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

ITA 1724/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra) The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 8…

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

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

ITA 2238/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.2238/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Manjunatheshwara Credit The Income Tax Officer Co-operative Society Limited Ward 6(2)(2) v. No.20, 3rd Main, 2nd Block Bengaluru. Ring Road, Nandini Layout Bangalore – 560 096. PAN : AAKAS1721M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, CA Respondent by : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 13.10.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of th…

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

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

ITA 1306/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1306/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Service The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Puttur – Ujire, 574 201. Belthangady – 574 240. Vs. Pan: Aaaju0058J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit.(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Dated 14/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Mangaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT.(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…e nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT reported in 389 ITR 578, wherein Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra). It can thus be seen that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sales Society in 395 ITR 611 is that, in light of the principles enunciated by Hon’…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 841/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…learned assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted on this issue itself. He relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 578. b. Maruti Zen car was purchased on 01.03.2005 has evident from the registration of the vehicle and therefore, the addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, it was submitted that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, addition could not have been made. The assessee…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 840/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…learned assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted on this issue itself. He relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 578. b. Maruti Zen car was purchased on 01.03.2005 has evident from the registration of the vehicle and therefore, the addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, it was submitted that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, addition could not have been made. The assessee…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…learned assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted on this issue itself. He relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 578. b. Maruti Zen car was purchased on 01.03.2005 has evident from the registration of the vehicle and therefore, the addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, it was submitted that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, addition could not have been made. The assessee…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 838/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…learned assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition deserves to be deleted on this issue itself. He relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 578. b. Maruti Zen car was purchased on 01.03.2005 has evident from the registration of the vehicle and therefore, the addition could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, it was submitted that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, addition could not have been made. The assessee…

Nikhara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 2(19)Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “SMC-B” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.629/Bang/2020 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.630/Bang/2020 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Nikhara Souharda Credit Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Limited Ward 5(2)(5) v. Bengaluru. No.148/1-1, 10th Main BKS 1st Stage, Srinagar Bengaluru – 560 050. PAN : AAATN9165H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Date of Hearing : 21.09.2021 O R D E R These appeals at the instance of the ass…

Nikhara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 629/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 2(19)Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “SMC-B” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.629/Bang/2020 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.630/Bang/2020 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Nikhara Souharda Credit Co- The Income Tax Officer operative Limited Ward 5(2)(5) v. Bengaluru. No.148/1-1, 10th Main BKS 1st Stage, Srinagar Bengaluru – 560 050. PAN : AAATN9165H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Nitish Ranjan, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Date of Hearing : 21.09.2021 O R D E R These appeals at the instance of the ass…

Petit Towers Co-Op Housing Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Petit Towers Co-Op. Income Tax Officer, 19(2)(5) Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Matru Mandir, Cs 597 & 598, Petit Towers, Mumbai - 400 007 August Kranti Marg, Bomani Petit Road, Cumballa Hill, Kemps Corner, Mumbai – 400 036 Pan No. Aaaap5446J (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R Revenue By : Shri R. K. Sahu, D.R Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-19 (For Short “Pr. Cit”), U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 17.02.2021, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 31.08.2017. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Sahu, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…We further 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 of State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj), had held, that the interest income earned by the assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Still further, we find that the CBDT Circular No. 14, dated 28.12.2006, also makes it clear beyond any scope of doubt that the purpose behind enactment of sub-sectio…

M/S. Aletty Co-Operative Agricultural Bank Limited, Sullia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 469/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aletty Co-Operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Aletty Post & Village, Ward -1, Sullia – 574 247. Puttur. Pan : Aaaaa 4243 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravish Rao, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurugu G, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mangaluru, Dated 06.01.2020, In Relation To Ay 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. It Accepts Deposits From Its Members & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. In The Return Of Income Filed For Assessment Year 2015-16, The Assessee Claimed Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) Of A Sum Of Rs.68,85,589/-. Out Of The Aforesaid Sum That Was Claimed As Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act, A Sum Of Rs.43,49,141 Was Interest On Deposits Made With South Canara District Co-Operative Bank(Scdcc Bank) & A Sum Of Rs.5,72,959 Was Dividend On Investments Made In Scdcc Bank. The Deduction On The Aforesaid Two Page 2 Of 14 Sums Were Claimed By The Assessee U/S.80P(2)(A)(D) Of The Act. The Remaining Sum Was Claimed As Deduction U/S.80P(2)(A) (I) Of The Act, Being Income Earned From Providing Credit Facility To Its Members.

For Appellant: Shri. Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Elamurugu G, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ill be in the nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT 389 ITR 578(Guj.). The Hon’ble Court had to deal with the following substantial question of law: "(I)Whether the assessee, Totagar Co-operative Sale Society, Sirsi, is entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in respect of whole of its income by way of interest earned by it during the relevant Asse…

M/S. Ravindra Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Udupi

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

ITA 1262/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniyan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. H Kabila, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…e nature of income from other sources and not income from business and therefore the deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act cannot be allowed to the Assessee. The Hon’ble Court followed decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of SBI Vs. CIT reported in 389 ITR 578, wherein Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dissented from the view taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants case (supra). It can thus be seen that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sales Society in 395 ITR 611 is that, in light of the principles enunciated by Hon’…

M/S. Potters Cottage Industrial Co-Operative Society Limited, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Puttur

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

ITA 1257/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 234Section 57Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1257 & 1258/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s Potters Cottage The Income-Tax Officer, Industiral Co-operative Ward-1, Society Ltd., Puttur. 02, Kulala Sahakara Vs. Bhavana, Puttur-574 201. PAN – AAAAP 1215 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Assessee by Revenue by : Smt. H Kabila, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 26-08-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30-08-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals are filed by the assessee agai…

Hyde Park (A) Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (4), Pune

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

ITA 262/PUN/2020[2016-2017`]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.262/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Hyde Park (A) Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Society Office Hyde Park (A) Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Market Yard Road, Market Yard, Pune-411037. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaajh0371F बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-5(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Shri Sudeep Chhallani Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 24.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are As Under :- The Appellant Is A Cooperative Society Formed Under The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Formed With The Object Of Maintaining The Housing Society. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Was Filed On 07.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(4), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

…2)(d) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to allow the same after due verification in the light of the following decisions :- (i) Land and Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO, 46 CCH 50 (Mum.); (ii) State Bank of India vs. CIT, 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) (iii) PCIT vs. Totagar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., 392 ITR 74; and, (iv) Shree Mahadeshwar Sahakari vs. ITO, ITA No.374/Mum/2018. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the grounds of appeal relating to the applicability of…