U/s80P(2)(d) CIT v. Haryana Co.

180 ITR 631High Court1989#13624 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

Judgments citing U/s80P(2)(d) CIT v. Haryana Co.

Shree Gajanan Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO -22(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 421/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawalshree Gajanan Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., 225/20, F.Imi Chs Ltd. Maharashtra High School Ground, Delisle Road Curry Road, Mumbai - 400013 Pan No. Aagas5954C ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kumbhar-CA/ ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

…operative banks, deduction under section 80P(2)(d) would be available to assessee on net income from interest. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that similar view was taken by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Haryana Co- operative Sugar Mills, 180 ITR 631. 3 Shree Gajanan Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. 3. On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied upon by the…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…not being material for the discussion, they are not referred to. As already stated, the marginal heading of S. 80P is “Deduction in respect of Income of Cooperative Societies.” 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd: (1989) 180 ITR 631 (P & H) in para no.8 which reads as under:- “8. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that short-term call deposits were investments within the meaning of Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and qualified for deduction under…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…not being material for the discussion, they are not referred to. As already stated, the marginal heading of S. 80P is “Deduction in respect of Income of Cooperative Societies.” 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd: (1989) 180 ITR 631 (P & H) in para no.8 which reads as under:- “8. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that short-term call deposits were investments within the meaning of Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and qualified for deduction under…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…not being material for the discussion, they are not referred to. As already stated, the marginal heading of S. 80P is “Deduction in respect of Income of Cooperative Societies.” 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Haryana Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd: (1989) 180 ITR 631 (P & H) in para no.8 which reads as under:- “8. For the reasons recorded above, we answer both the questions in favour of the assessee, in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that short-term call deposits were investments within the meaning of Sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and qualified for deduction under…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 393/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

…f the Samarparn Co operative credit Society Ltd. vrs. ACIT by hon'ble Karnataka High Court. These deposits are rather short term call deposits which are held to be business income and is exempt U/s80P(2)(d) CIT v. Haryana Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 631(Punj), SLP dismissed : (1991) 187ITR (St.)l52-53(SC). As regards interest earn from deposits with Nationalized banks, it is most humbly submitted that income from other sources is a residuary head of income and it is to be considered only when some item of income is not classifiable under any of the definite heads of income as per the Income Tax…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 392/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

…f the Samarparn Co operative credit Society Ltd. vrs. ACIT by hon'ble Karnataka High Court. These deposits are rather short term call deposits which are held to be business income and is exempt U/s80P(2)(d) CIT v. Haryana Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1989) 180 ITR 631(Punj), SLP dismissed : (1991) 187ITR (St.)l52-53(SC). As regards interest earn from deposits with Nationalized banks, it is most humbly submitted that income from other sources is a residuary head of income and it is to be considered only when some item of income is not classifiable under any of the definite heads of income as per the Income Tax…

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

ITTA/305/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

U/s80P(2)(d) CIT v. Haryana Co. (180 ITR 631) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax