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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4) of the Act. The Ld.AO\nthus denied the contention of the assessee that, the interest\nearned from investment made may be considered under section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision

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

4 days in filing the appeal by the revenue & 11 days in filing the Cross Objections by the assessee for the AY 2018-19 & 2020-21 before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the 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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 80P(4).The appellant is\nnot a primary agricultural credit society(PACS) as defined in\nPart V of the Banking Regulations Act,1949. In view of the\nabove, the decision of C1T(A)/ NFAC to allow entire deduction\nu/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is opposed to the facts of the case.\n3.\nThe CIT(A)/ NFAC

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

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

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. BASAVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY :LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is with regard to allowability of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act to the assessee. The assessee is a credit co-operative society engaged in lending various types of loans and collecting deposits from its members. The assessee claimed a deduction

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

4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not a charter for indolence or a device to revive stale claims that the law of limitation otherwise extinguishes. 124. The burden to establish sufficient cause lies upon the party seeking condonation, and the court must be satisfied that the cause is real, bona fide, and free

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

4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not a charter for indolence or a device to revive stale claims that the law of limitation otherwise extinguishes. 124. The burden to establish sufficient cause lies upon the party seeking condonation, and the court must be satisfied that the cause is real, bona fide, and free

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

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

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

section 80P(4).The appellant is not a primary agricultural credit society(PACS) as defined in Part V of the Banking Regulations Act,1949. In view of the above, the decision of C1T(A)/ NFAC to allow entire deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is opposed to the facts of the case. 3. The CIT(A)/ NFAC