M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.\nLater, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income of Rs. 4,37,00,195/- and the total\nincome of Rs. 1,61,03,690/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016\n3.\nOn December

FARMERS AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LTD KOPPACREDIT CO OPERATIVE,PERIAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.4 The appellant society would like provide the following details which are extracted from the audited balance sheet of the society Own Funds Amount in ₹ Particulars F.Y. 2015-16 F.Y. 2017-18 Share Capital 2,28,82,490 2,87,44,485 Reserve Fund

FARMERS AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KOPPA,PERIAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MYSURU

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.4 The appellant society would like provide the following details which are extracted from the audited balance sheet of the society Own Funds Amount in ₹ Particulars F.Y. 2015-16 F.Y. 2017-18 Share Capital 2,28,82,490 2,87,44,485 Reserve Fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

80P. The Apex court had categorically held that investments made by a banking concern are part of the business of banking. In the present case also the investments held by banks are treated only as part of the business of banking only but not as a Stock in Trade but as a Capital Asset. 8.4 Further, both the parties also

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, the said amount of interest earned from a co-operative bank would be deductible from the gross income of the co-operative society in order to assess its total income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the said deduction to the assessee- respondent. It was fairly conceded

M/S BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation amounting to Rs.41.578/- 5.The L.A.A. erred in not granting deduction on account u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on provision towards gratuity amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-“. 2. Ground no.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific finding, as the assessee has not advanced any argument except on the merits of the case. 3. Ground no.2 regarding

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page 18 of 20` "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page 18 of 20` "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends

UPPUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

Section 80P(2)(a), considering its intact cooperative framework. This request also aligns with the principles set forth in CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, which explicitly states that enhanced profits, subsequent to the making of additions and disallowances, should be eligible for deductions under Chapter VI A of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, omit

M/S HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD ,HASSAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

80P(2)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 3. The first issue relates to disallowance of claim of additional depreciation. During the year under consideration, the assessee made addition to plant and machinery to the extent of Rs.8,80,55,883/-. The assessee claimed

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

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 the Assessment Years

SUBRAMANYA KARTHIK,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee 9 Shri Subramanya Karthik filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based

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

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 the Assessment Years

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2). The CIT(A) also taken notice of the fact that the assessee had no working regarding depreciated value of assets and capital gains on sale of assets. In the absence of such working, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition.’ ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 14 of 42 9.3 Being aggrieved, the assessee-bank is in appeal before