BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

57 results for “TDS”+ Section 80P(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai133Bangalore57Raipur51Pune27Delhi23Visakhapatnam18Kolkata17Ahmedabad10Chennai9Surat9Jaipur8Lucknow8Nagpur6Cochin6Karnataka5Indore2Jodhpur2Amritsar1Kerala1Hyderabad1Panaji1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P102Deduction45Section 80P(2)(a)40Section 194A37Addition to Income33Disallowance31Section 143(3)27Section 80P(2)(d)24TDS24Section 80P(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

80P. The Apex court had categorically held that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business of banking. In the present case also the investments held by banks are treated only as part of the business of banking only but not as a Stock in Trade but as a Capital Asset. 8.4 Further, both the parties also

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

23
Section 201(1)22
Section 4013

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

b. That there are three types of banks, i.e. scheduled banks, co - operative banks and Regional Rural Banks. c. The definition of cooperative bank for the purpose of 8oP is as per banking regulation act. d. The Banking regulation Act defines co operative bank as per NABARD, [See section 5 (cci) read with ccvii read with section

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

b. That there are three types of banks, i.e. scheduled banks, co - operative banks and Regional Rural Banks. c. The definition of cooperative bank for the purpose of 8oP is as per banking regulation act. d. The Banking regulation Act defines co operative bank as per NABARD, [See section 5 (cci) read with ccvii read with section

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

ITA 795/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

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

ITA 796/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

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

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS on interest payments made to its members/deposit holders. Thus the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.1,68,68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted.\niii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/-\nand commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

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 &

ITA 151/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

1)(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies, no co- operative society would carry on banking business in India, unless it is a cooperative bank and holds a licence issued in that behalf by RBI. As opposed to this, a primary agricultural credit society is a co-operative society, primary object of which is provide

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 &

ITA 152/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

1)(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies, no co- operative society would carry on banking business in India, unless it is a cooperative bank and holds a licence issued in that behalf by RBI. As opposed to this, a primary agricultural credit society is a co-operative society, primary object of which is provide

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 &

ITA 150/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 2Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

1)(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies, no co- operative society would carry on banking business in India, unless it is a cooperative bank and holds a licence issued in that behalf by RBI. As opposed to this, a primary agricultural credit society is a co-operative society, primary object of which is provide

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

ITA 827/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT) BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar G. Hegde, CA
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

TDS provisions are not applicable. 5. The revenue is in appeal before us contesting only against the finding of the CIT(Appeals) allowing the benefit u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act. The ld. Sr.DR vehemently contended that the respondent-assessee co- operative society is not eligible for deduction for the benefit of section 80P as it is engaged

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

ITA 6/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 18Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

TDS, therefore\n30% of 75,000 i.e., Rs.22,500 was further disallowed. Accordingly assessment\norder was passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.11.2018. Accordingly, total income\nof was computed at Rs.19,33,151/-.\n4.\nThe assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It\nwas submitted that the amount of investment made by the assessee

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

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

ITA 673/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri A Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

80P; (e) “housing finance company” means a public company formed or registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; (f) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1

J.C.I.T vs. M/S CANARA BANK,

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

b) the sum so arrived at in the case of each such branch shall be divided by the number of months for which the outstanding advances have been taken into account for the purposes of clause (a) ; (c) the aggregate of the sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1440/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

b) the sum so arrived at in the case of each such branch shall be divided by the number of months for which the outstanding advances have been taken into account for the purposes of clause (a) ; (c) the aggregate of the sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 931/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

b) the sum so arrived at in the case of each such branch shall be divided by the number of months for which the outstanding advances have been taken into account for the purposes of clause (a) ; (c) the aggregate of the sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

b) the sum so arrived at in the case of each such branch shall be divided by the number of months for which the outstanding advances have been taken into account for the purposes of clause (a) ; (c) the aggregate of the sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances

CANARA BANK vs. ADDL.C.I,.T,

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

ITA 979/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

b) the sum so arrived at in the case of each such branch shall be divided by the number of months for which the outstanding advances have been taken into account for the purposes of clause (a) ; (c) the aggregate of the sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances

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

ITA 241/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri.Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234ASection 234CSection 4oSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

1,00,000/-was paid in the following year and the recipient has already offered the same to tax and thus no Page 3 of 9 disallowance ought to have been made in the hands of the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies itself to pay interest under section 234A, 234B 6. and section

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

ITA 1115/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 40Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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

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

ITA 704/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

1. The order of CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. Whether, on facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) by relying on the judgment of the ITAT in the case of M/s.Markamba Mahila Co- operative Credit Society