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

delay is condoned; and the Appeals & the Cos for both the Asst. years are admitted for adjudication. 7. Further, the assessee has filed additional ground in the grounds of cross objection as ground no.8. During the course of the ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 11 of 44 proceedings before

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 141. Test of "sufficient cause" cannot be substituted by an examination of the merits of the case. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on explanation

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIPTUR vs. SRIUDAYARAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income and claimed deduction under section 80P

M/S. MANJUNATHESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The appellant denies himself liable to be taxed on disallowance of Rs.6,89,167/- as assessed by the learned CIT(A) as against the return income of Rs. NIL under the facts 2 ITA No.2238/Bang/2019. M/s.Manjunatheshwara

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

M/S. KAJEKAR SEVA SHAKARI BANK ,BANTWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kajekar Seva Sahakari Bank, Vs. Ito, Pandavarakallu, B Kajekar, Ward –2(1), Bantal – 574 233, Karnataka. Mangalore. Pan : Aaaak 2473 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satish Meriga, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 38 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

80P of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee prayed the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay. 9. The assessee regarding the delay in filing of return submitted that it was holding 2 PAN hence there was a confusion which PAN should be used for filing the return of income. Therefore, the claim of deduction under section

M/S. KACHUR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,KACHUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kachur Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, 15-20-1227/6, Ward - 2(2), Lower Ground Floor, Mangalore. Essel Wilcon Below Radha Medicals, Bendorewell, Kankanady, Mangalore – 575 002. Pan : Aaatk 8754 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kashinath Kalamath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023

condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. Page 2 of 6 3. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of claim under section 80P

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,BALLUPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

JAMMANAHALLY PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA,SAKLESHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, HASSAN

In the result ITA No. 192/Bangalore/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 9. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka cooperative societies act, 1959 filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017 – 18 on 1 October 2017 declaring a total taxable income at rupees Nil after claiming deduction under

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

condonation of delay in filing return of Income. The assessment unit erred in not considering the delay in filing of return of income as a mere technical delay since all the other documents were filed within time. 5. The learned Income Tax Officer has erred in disallowing deduction under Section 80P

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

condoned the delay by exercising power conferred under section 249(3) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has surrendered the PAN, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C