SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

251\n1,05,150\n45,00,000\n5,61,800\n[C]\n1,12,92,691\n1,12,92,691\nTotal Long Term Capital Gains\n1/2 Share of assessee in Total Long\nTerm Capital Gains\n[D]\n29,21,90,606 [D]\n14,60,95,303\n54,28,86,124\n27,14,43,062\n3.8 In the assessment proceedings

M/S. ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALUAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

2,83,86,495/- by making an addition of Rs.191 ,95,68,251/- as long term capital gains under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. M/s. Atria Wind (Kadambur) Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 19 4. The learned CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.191,95,68,251/- under

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

section 80P(2)(a)(i). There\nis nothing in the phraseology of that provision which makes\nit applicable only to income derived from working or\ncirculating capital.”\n\n14.10 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District\nCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in\n(SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains tax under Section 45 of the Act could not be levied for this Assessment Year.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "2(47)(v)", "53A", "45", "234A", "234B", "234C", "133A", "142(1)", "143(2)", "251(2)" ], "issues": "Whether an unregistered agreement for sale or Power of Attorney constitutes a transfer for capital

THE BELTHANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SANGHA LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

251 ITR 194 vide order dated 22 August 2001 has\ndirected to allow deduction of the same under the provisions of section\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgement is\nreproduced as under:\nITA No.1927 & 1943/Bang/2024\nPage 11 of 16\nThere is no doubt, and it is not disputed, that the assessee-co-operative

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

251 ITR 0194 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. 289 ITR 6 (SC) (v) Bori Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs ITO , ITA NO. 200 & 221/PAN/2019 dated 27.12.2022 (vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT & another vs Totagars Co-operative Sales Society, (2017) 392 ITR 0074 (Karn) 7. On the other

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1& TPS, BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

251 ITR 0194 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. 289 ITR 6 (SC) (v) Bori Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs ITO , ITA NO. 200 & 221/PAN/2019 dated 27.12.2022 (vi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr.CIT & another vs Totagars Co-operative Sales Society, (2017) 392 ITR 0074 (Karn) 7. On the other

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i). There\nis nothing in the phraseology of that provision which makes\nit applicable only to income derived from working or\ncirculating capital.”\n10.9 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District\nCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in\n(SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated by relying

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i). There\nis nothing in the phraseology of that provision which makes\nit applicable only to income derived from working or\ncirculating capital.”\n10.9 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District\nCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in\n(SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated by relying

NAGINI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

capital of the society and shall be deposited into Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 the co -operative Bank hence there is a Business nexus to the earning of interest income hence eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) The reliance is placed on following case laws a. Lankapalli PACS Ltd V/s ITO, held

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i). There is nothing in the phraseology of that provision which makes it applicable only to income derived from working or circulating capital.”\n\n9.10 Further, the Apex Court in the case of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer Reported in (SC) :(2001) 251 ITR 522 had again reiterated by relying

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains that are derived from the export. There cannot be any doubt that interest income earned by members credit co-operative society can said to be “attributable to” the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Kindly note that the deduction u/s. 80P is not with respect to an activity but with reference to business as a whole