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

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

2) SC, the 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

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

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section 143 (2

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(2

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 80P(2)(d) of the Ach Additional Ground 8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that the learned lower authorities ought to have held that the interest of Rs.1,00,80,256/- from investment made in Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank cannot be said to be accrued and therefore, cannot be treated as income. Each of the above grounds

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR vs. SRI UDAYRAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

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

2) SC, the 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. 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,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

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

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA NELAJI ,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prathamika Krushi Pathina Sahakara Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamitha Nelaji, Ward – 1, No.2776, Nelaji, Nelaji Madikeri, Madikeri. Kodagu – 571 214. Pan : Aagan 1004 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2024

2 of 8 filing of this appeal. Hence, I condone the delay of 11 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a primary agricultural credit co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It is engaged

YADAGERE SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The issues raised in the grounds of appeal are deduction of interest income received from banks u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and considering the interest income as income from other sources u/s. 56 of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return

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

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

delay in filing the return of income, thereby allowing the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated 07/10/2024, had filed a petition under section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation

BANNANJE GRAHAKARA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD., ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, , UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

M/S. RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hesaraghatta, Opp. Bmtc Bus Stop, Hesaraghatta Mainroad, Bangalore-560 088 ….Appellant Pan Aacar1587N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2)(5), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 3. The Concise grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under : 3 4 4. The Brief facts of the assessee are that the assessee is a co-operative society registered as Association of Persons(AOP) engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to the members of the society