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

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the Page 12 of 14 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condoned and the deduction as claimed by the appellant is to be granted to the appellant. 6. The appellant denies the liability to pay Interest u/s 234A&234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time

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

B of the Act, which requires to be cancelled under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

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(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. From the documents filed, it was noticed that the assessee

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

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

SHREE REVANASIDDESHWARA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT RAMPUR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P of the Act due to the restriction under section 80AC of the Act. However, the CBDT, through Circular No. 13/2023, dated 26/07/2023, has provided that the assessee can seek condonation of the delay under section 119(2)(b

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

B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1518/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. The Karnataka State Regn and Stamps Department Officials Multi-purpose Co-op Society Ltd., No. 13/A, 8th Main Road, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010 PAN: AAATT1708N APPELLANT Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

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

b. The learned Addl.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there existed `sufficient cause' for delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned Addl.CIT(A) ought to have 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

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

1) of the Act. In Page 4 of 7 view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, (which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay

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

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 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed

SHRI GANGAPARAMESHWARI URABAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MUDALGI,MUDALGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

1) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, (which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

80P of the Act is bad in law. M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari Ni, Raichur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) order has been served to the assessee on 30.10.2021. As per section

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

b) of 5.139(1) of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the due date for filing the return of income of the appellant is 31.10.2019 and the return of income filed on 26.10.2019 is well within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore, eligible for deduction