INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

capital gain tax can be\nlevied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under:\n\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

capital gain tax can be\nlevied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under:\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain tax can be levied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12\npara 21 as under:\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to\na banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

capital gain tax can be\nlevied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under:\n\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its\namendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a\nbanking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gain tax can be levied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12\npara 21 as under:\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to\nits amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable\nto a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

M/S. BANK OF BARODA(ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, LTU, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.234/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year: 2015-16\Nm/S. Bank Of Baroda (Erstwhile\Nvijaya Bank)\N2Nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre\Nbandra Kurla Complex\Nbandra (East)\Nmumbai 400 051\Npan No: Aaacv4791J\Nappellant\Nvs.\Naddl. Cit\Nltu\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\N:\Nsmt. Lalitha Rameshwaran, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nsri Rajashekhar M., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N03.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N04.04.2025\No R D E R\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 23.12.2024 Vide Din & Order\Nno. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071453089(1) Passed U/S 250 Of\Nthe Act (In Short “The Act”) For The Ay 2015-16.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Law & Facts Of The Case.\N2. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.\N2.

capital gain tax can be levied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12\npara 21 as under:\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to\nits amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable\nto a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

gains of\nbusiness attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking\nor providing credit facilities to its members by a co-operative society and is\nliable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the\nAct. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also distinguished the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. JYOTHI PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

SRI VASAVAMBA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HUNSUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Vasavamba Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ganesh Temple, Street Hunsur, Mysuru. Mysuru – 571 105, Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 6055 P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2020 Of Pr.Cit, Mysuru, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), In Relation To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. It Accepts Deposits From Its Members & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Distributing Food Grains On Behalf Of The Karnataka State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. In The Return Of Income Filed For Assessment Year 2015-16, The Asssessee Claimed Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act, 1961 Of A Sum Of Rs.10,61,494/- As Income From The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Ao Page 2 Of 15 Passed An Order Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 31.07.2017 Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee.

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate