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

C)]. e. The NABARD Act, also defines the different class of banks [see Sec 2 (d), (p) and (q) of NABARD Act] f. Section 22 of the regional rural bank clearly deems the RRB as Co operative society for income tax act 6. The appellant, M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Vikas Bank, being a RRB is deemed to be Co operative

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

C)]. e. The NABARD Act, also defines the different class of banks [see Sec 2 (d), (p) and (q) of NABARD Act] f. Section 22 of the regional rural bank clearly deems the RRB as Co operative society for income tax act 6. The appellant, M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Vikas Bank, being a RRB is deemed to be Co operative

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

C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.704 to 709/Bang/2015 (Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2012-13) Income-tax Officer, Ward 1, Sirsi. … Appellant PAN: AACAT 0251D Vs. The Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. TSS Road, Sirsi. … Respondent AND Cross Objn.Nos.179 to 182/Bang/2015 (In ITA Nos.704

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

c) of Rs. 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

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.150 to 152/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 M/s. Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Vs. ITO, Sangha Niyamitha, Ward - 5, PLD Bank Building, Shivamogga. Taluk Office Road, Thirthahalli – 577 432, Shivamogga. PAN : AABAS 8853 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.150 to 152/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 M/s. Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Vs. ITO, Sangha Niyamitha, Ward - 5, PLD Bank Building, Shivamogga. Taluk Office Road, Thirthahalli – 577 432, Shivamogga. PAN : AABAS 8853 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.150 to 152/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 M/s. Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Vs. ITO, Sangha Niyamitha, Ward - 5, PLD Bank Building, Shivamogga. Taluk Office Road, Thirthahalli – 577 432, Shivamogga. PAN : AABAS 8853 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale

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

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

TDS). Therefore, in accordance with the provision of section 40(a)(i) of the Act, an amount of Rs. 77,648/- (30%) was required to be disallowed. However, the assessee instead of disallowing impugned amount has reduced gross total income by Rs. 11,032/- . only. . Page 4 of 11 Hence, the AO made the disallowances

MENASI SEEMEYA GROUP,SIRSI vs. CIT, HUBLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

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 by a Co-operative Society, where such deposits were with a Co-operative Bank, we are of the opinion that restrictive interpretation given

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

C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.410/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Shri Shankarling Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Credit Souharda Sahakari Ward 1(3) v. Belagavi. Niyamit, Subhas Road, Sankeshwar Dist : Belagavi – 591 313. PAN : AADAS3568D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Miss.Preethi S.Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 Date

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

c) He misdirected himself in not following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Vitthalray Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit v. Union of India (426 ITR 457) and failed to appreciate that the said decision holds the field on the eligibility of Souhardas for claiming benefit under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Briefly

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

c) He misdirected himself in not following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Vitthalray Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit v. Union of India (426 ITR 457) and failed to appreciate that the said decision holds the field on the eligibility of Souhardas for claiming benefit under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Briefly

SHRI SALESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- (1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

C” BENCH : BANGALORE ` BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Shri Saleshwar Pattin Sahakari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sangh Niyamith, Ward 1, Guledgudd. Dist. Bagalkot. Bagalkot. PAN: AACAS 9507K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ishwar S. Yanni, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 05.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement

UDUPI TALUK PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

TDS, the assessee submitted that even after the addition made to the total income, the same again qualified for deduction under section 80P of the Act and therefore no tax effect would be there by adding this 30% to the total income. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the grounds and dismissed the appeal by stating that the assessee had given loans

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80P, Doddakannellii, Income-tax, Sarjapur Road, Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore 560 035 Bangalore. PAN: AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member The appeal filed by the assessee