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 (4

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 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, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

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

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

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

4) of the Act r.w.s. 2(24)(viia) the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction as per section 80P(2) of the Act. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the orders of the authorities below, I have noted as pointed out by the ld. AR of the assessee that the CIT(A) has taken figures

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

4 of 12 contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that there is nothing in the section that would warrant exclusion of co- operative society from the genus of the term co-operative society. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) by following the decision of this Tribunal in case

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

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 deduction on such interest payment. Accordingly, 30% of such interest paid was disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further

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’).

4) excludes the applicability of 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

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

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

4. The assessee for the year under consideration declared gross total income of Rs. 1,76,24,174/- which consist of business income of Rs. 1,75,65,121/- and income from house property of Rs. 59,053/- only. The entire gross total income of Rs. 1,76,24,174/- claimed as deduction under section 80P

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

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 had preferred an appeal against the above- mentioned order and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 20.12.2021 in WA No.406/2020 held that the provisions of section 80P offers tax deduction

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

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 had preferred an appeal against the above- mentioned order and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 20.12.2021 in WA No.406/2020 held that the provisions of section 80P offers tax deduction

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

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

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

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

MENASI SEEMEYA GROUP,SIRSI vs. CIT, HUBLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4. Per contra, learned DR strongly supported the order of the CIT and also submitted that the AO had not applied or considered section 80P(2)(d), in accordance with the wordings of the said section. Hence, according to him there was an error which was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. We have perused the orders