THE NBI EMPLOYEES CO-OP NON-AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowance w.r.t. deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was required to be added to its income as rightly observed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. As per provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Co¬ operative Society is provided deduction under said section in respect of income

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.238/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the the Act. In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.21,05,192/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE KOT RAM DASS COOP. THIRFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.86/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1. That having regard to the facts of the case, the NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,05,192/- as wrongly made by the ld. ITO by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect net interest earned from two Cooperative Banks. 2. That while making the above disallowance, the authorities below failed

M/S. THE FARIDKOT PRIMARY COOP AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed by the AO on a different ground that area of operation of the assessee was not confined to its single taluk, and that he has wrongly interpreted the definition of Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank as given in explanation to section 80P(4) of the Act. In support of its contention, the ld. AR has filed a paper

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

1. That the Revenue has wrongly rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d), on account of dividend and interest received on investment made in other cooperative society banks. Thus, order is bad in law. 2. That the Revenue allowed the deduction u/s 80P during the assessment

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61, and has assessed the interest portion received from bank amounting to Rs. 42.47 lakhs, under the head Income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act 61. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT ( A ) NFAC, has also considered

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61, and has assessed the interest portion received from bank amounting to Rs. 42.47 lakhs, under the head Income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act 61. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT ( A ) NFAC, has also considered

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61, and has assessed the interest portion received from bank amounting to Rs. 42.47 lakhs, under the head Income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act 61. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT ( A ) NFAC, has also considered

THE JASSOMAZARA COOP MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the four appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 513 To 516/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 61, and has assessed the interest portion received from bank amounting to Rs. 42.47 lakhs, under the head Income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act 61. 9. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT ( A ) NFAC, has also considered

THE MUTHADA KHURD CO OPERATIVE AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGWARA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

80P of the Act. This is an admitted fact that the said return was filed belatedly on 14.10.2019. The "due date" for filing return of income under section 139 for the year under consideration was 30.09.2019. Therefore, while processing the return of income, AO has made prime-facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and disallowed

MESRES ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICULTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 80P(2)(a), which is wide enough to include such interest earned by the assessee society in its fold as also affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the judgement cited supra. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not allowing to set off, as an alternative the average cost of funds from the said interest

M/S ATHOULA CO-OP AGRICLUTURE MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 80P(2)(a), which is wide enough to include such interest earned by the assessee society in its fold as also affirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the judgement cited supra. 5. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not allowing to set off, as an alternative the average cost of funds from the said interest

THE MAHIL GAILAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAHIL GAILAN, SBS NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Law, the Worthy Commissioner of Mumbai Income Tax (Appeals)/ JCIT (Appeals)-10, Mumbai has wrongfully denied the claim of deduction of the assessee under Section 80P of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ JCIT (Appeals)-10, Mumbai has wrongfully disallowed

THE NAKODAR PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAKODAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

80P. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming order passed by AO on the footing that opinions given by the Chartered Accountants are not binding on the assessee or the AO as per assertion of the Union Govt. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case

MALWA CO-OP L & C SOCIETY LTD,MUKTSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) and allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi). Accordingly, the arguments made by Ld. DR will not help the revenue. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” During the first assessment the gross receipt of the assessee was determined Rs. 69,02,988/- and the profit

THE BAGHAPURANA & CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFEIER-2, MOGA

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. A.O. is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer is not at all justified in rejecting deduction u/ s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting Rs.2,73,342/— on account of interest received from various Banks other than Co—operative Bank. However