INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act refers to the interest and dividends earned from investments in another co-operative society only & thus this deduction cannot be extended to the interest income earned from the investment in any co-operative bank or any scheduled banks. Further, the AO reiterated that deduction u/s 80P is not at all applicable

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40[a][ia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40[a][ia] of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: [a] Income-tax Officer-Ward

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

80P(4) was to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks and noted that as primary agricultural credit societies are not entitled for obtaining a banking license would not be hit by this provision. In the light of the law on the issue discussed above, I am of the view that the Assessee is entitled

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

80P(4) was to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks and noted that as primary agricultural credit societies are not entitled for obtaining a banking license would not be hit by this provision. In the light of the law on the issue discussed above, I am of the view that the Assessee is entitled

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

80P(4) was to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks and noted that as primary agricultural credit societies are not entitled for obtaining a banking license would not be hit by this provision. In the light of the law on the issue discussed above, I am of the view that the Assessee is entitled

SHRI MAHAVEER CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,ALAGUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAGUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes\nPronounced in the open court on this 25th day of July, 2025

80P(2)(d) of the Act\nshould be allowed to the assessee, (ii) Further the disallowance of Rs.75,000 was\nconfirmed for non-deduction of tax at source for the audit fees.\n3.\nBriefly stated the facts of the case show that assessee is registered under the\nKarnataka Co-operative Societies Act [KCS Act], filed its return of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT vs. SHRI BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT , BAGALKOT

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS was made of Rs.1,70,46,946. The AO denied the exemption u/s. 80P on the ground that the respondent-assessee society is a bank and is hit by the provisions of sub-section

SHREE BASAVESHWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,HUNGUND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He also submitted that the payments made to the pigmy commission agents were not liable for TDS and requested that the matter may be sent back for the purpose of the verification whether it is liable for TDS or not and in respect of audit fee paid to auditor of Rs.1.00/- lakh

ITO, SIRSI vs. THE TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY, SIRSI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Out of the total claim of Rs.9,77,821/- AO had disallowed Rs.4,770/- being interest of TDS for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, it is not a case where AO failed to apply his mind at all. 6. Now coming to the question as to whether the interest on deposits earned

SRI SRI VAISHNAVI PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,GANGAVATHI vs. ITO WARD 1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

section 80P(2) of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee has debited of Rs.70,96,520/- towards interest paid in the P/L account and as per submission of the assessee, there was no TDS

ITO, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. SAHAKARA NAGAR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, the same is taxable as income from other sources. 9. Likewise, the AO found that the Auditor in the Form 3CD reported expenses amounting to Rs. 2,58,825/- incurred/paid without deducting eligible tax at source (TDS

M/S. NAGINI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Nagini Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.569, 3Rd Stage, 4Th Block, 80 Ft. Road, Ward – 6[2][1], Basaveswara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aacan 5552 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co- Operative Societies Act, 1959. For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income & Claimed Deduction Of A Sum Of Rs.1,70,31,095/- Under Section 80P(2)(1)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

section 80P of IT Act altogether to any co-operative Bank and the term used is "relation to". 194A(3)(v) of IT Act also amended to make TDS

M/S. TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,RAICHUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

section 80P offers tax deduction in respect of income of Co-operative Societies which is enacted with a laudable object of promoting Co-operating moment and such benefit cannot be denied to the so-called Co-operatives under the Souharda Act merely on hyper technicalities. 6.4 In views of the above reasoning and the judicial pronouncement, cited supra

M/S. TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,RAICHUR vs. THE INCOME TAX, OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

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

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

section 80P offers tax deduction in respect of income of Co-operative Societies which is enacted with a laudable object of promoting Co-operating moment and such benefit cannot be denied to the so-called Co-operatives under the Souharda Act merely on hyper technicalities. 6.4 In views of the above reasoning and the judicial pronouncement, cited supra

M/S. THOTA UTHPANNAGALA MARATA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,DAVANAGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), DAVANAGERE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS of Rs.11,05,182/- was deducted. The Ld.AR submitted that, there is a clear nexus between the withdrawal and deposit of funds from OD account to Pragati Gramina Bank and that the interest earned was attributable to the business of assessee. He submitted that the purpose of depositing funds from OD account into Pragati Gramina bank was to maintain

M/S. LALITHAMBA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA ,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section and assessee is eligible for\ndeduction u/s. 80P on such interest income. The AO has wrongly\nclassified interest income has income from other sources without\nallowing full deduction on the cost of funds and administrative\nexpenses. He further submitted that the AO is not justified in stating\nthat the appellant has already claimed benefit of expenditure in\ncomputing

SHRI SHANKARLING CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3), BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri George George K

section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act is invoked, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. As regards the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act is concerned