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

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

section 8oP of the Act.” ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 27 7. In addition to the above written synopsis, the ld.AR argued on the legal issue in regard to eligibility of claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank and it is a cooperative society, therefore, the sec.80P(iv) will

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

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

section 8oP of the Act.” ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 27 7. In addition to the above written synopsis, the ld.AR argued on the legal issue in regard to eligibility of claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank and it is a cooperative society, therefore, the sec.80P(iv) will

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

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

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 80P(2)(d) of the Act and after relying on various judgments, he held that the interest income received by the assessee is not eligible for claiming of deduction and it is to be treated as income from other sources. Accordingly, he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) also confirm the addition made

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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 provisions applicable to Cooperative Banks, thus it made the legislative intent very clear that Co-operative bank is not a specie of Co- operative society. Deduction provision needs to be strictly

MENASI SEEMEYA GROUP,SIRSI vs. CIT, HUBLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P George

section. Hence, according to him there was an error which was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. A reading of the computation part of the assessment, do show that AO had considered the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s 80P(2

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

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

2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore subject to all the exemptions, petitioners are entitled to stake their claim for the benefit of section 80P of the said Act.” 4 ITA Nos.724-725/Bang/2021 M/s.Tungabhadra Pattina Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha. 6.3 In the aforesaid case, i.e., in the case of M/s.Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. (supra), the Department