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

d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest earned from cooperative societies only (not co- operative banks as clarified above) and the interest earned from members and non-members respectively. Hence, the relevant grounds of appeal raised in this regard are hereby Partly allowed.” 7. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT

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

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

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue which are against the orderdated 11/12/2023vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058652337(1) passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the AY 2017-18 and order dated 06/11/2023 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057736394(1) passed

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This stance is based on the fundamental nature of cooperative banks as Page 2 of 5 cooperative societies, which, under the provisions of the Act, entitle the interest received from them to be eligible for such deductions. 1.2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the appellant submits that interest income derived from cooperative

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Th appeal by the assessee in ITA No.995/Bang/2022 is directed against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 23.09.2022 for the AY 2020-21 and the appeal by the assessee in ITA No.1079/Bang/2022 is directed against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 15.12.2021 for the AY 2019-20 passed

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Th appeal by the assessee in ITA No.995/Bang/2022 is directed against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 23.09.2022 for the AY 2020-21 and the appeal by the assessee in ITA No.1079/Bang/2022 is directed against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 15.12.2021 for the AY 2019-20 passed

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.

D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. ITA No. 1148/Bang/2022 – AY 2019-20 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.11.2022 for AY 2019-20. 2. The facts are that for the assessment year under consideration the return of income was processed by the CPC and in the intimation issued

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.

D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. ITA No. 1148/Bang/2022 – AY 2019-20 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.11.2022 for AY 2019-20. 2. The facts are that for the assessment year under consideration the return of income was processed by the CPC and in the intimation issued

HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,HASSAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 15/02/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1060964671(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made

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

D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Mysore and it relates to the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following two issues:- a) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income

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

d. The depreciation is compulsory as per Explanation 5 to section 32 and hence ought to be applied while computing profits u/s 10AA. The appellant submits that the arguments of the Revenue are not sustainable for the following reasons:- (I) 10AA is deduction section :- The Learned AR, pointed out that the AO in his order at para 13.3 has explained

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

d. The depreciation is compulsory as per Explanation 5 to section 32 and hence ought to be applied while computing profits u/s 10AA. The appellant submits that the arguments of the Revenue are not sustainable for the following reasons:- Page 16 of 39 (I) 10AA is deduction section :- The Learned AR, pointed out that the AO in his order

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

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

d) Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 63 (Bom) —Provision for bad debts u/s.36(1)(iii) being a debatable issue cannot be disallowed u/s.143(1)(a) of the IT Act. 10. It is further submitted that the Cuttack Bench of ITAT in the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services (P) Ltd in ITA No.98/2022 remanded the matter