THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\n\nPage 4 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c) its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

c) its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c) its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c) its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do\nas a staff welfare measure.\nPage 4 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not\nconsider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim under section 80P (2

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

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n8.\nOn merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has\nclaimed deduction, which is as follows:-\n1) Under Section 80P(2)(a)\nRs.14,76,803\n2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/-\nTotal\nRs.28,75,375/-\n9.\nThe ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by\nthe assessee

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.\n6.\nBriefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return\nof income and claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee.\nFrom the documents filed, it was noticed that the assessee

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

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. 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(2)(a)(i) / 80P(2)(d) of the Act with respect to interest income amounting to Rs.5,07,822/- earned on investments

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

C 75, 2025 INSC 1104 has laid down certain principles for condonation of delay that 212. The law as it presently stands, post the decision of Postmaster General (supra), is unambiguous and clear. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause

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

C 75, 2025 INSC 1104 has laid down certain principles for condonation of delay that 212. The law as it presently stands, post the decision of Postmaster General (supra), is unambiguous and clear. Condonation of delay is to remain an exception, not the rule. Governmental litigants, no less than private parties, must demonstrate bona fide, sufficient, and cogent cause

CHARVAKA SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

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

C' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No. 901/Bang/2023\n Assessment Year : 2016-17\nM/s. Charvaka Seva\nSahakari Bank Ltd.,\nCharvaka PACS Ltd.,\nPost Charvaka,\nPuttur Taluk, D.K.\nPuttur - 574 210.\nPAN: AAAJC0136B\nAPPELLANT\nThe Income Tax\nOfficer,\nWard – 1,\nPuttur.\nVs.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\nSmt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate\nRevenue

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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

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