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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 7 of 20 7. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the I T Act 1961 Rs. 6,98,06.298;- holding that

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 is with regard totaxing of the profit from the sale of shares of Can Fin Homes Ltd./CARE Ltd as business income instead of income from capital

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

194A is further qualified by the provisions of section 197A(1A) wherein if a person furnishes a declaration in writing in prescribed Form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that tax on his estimated total income is to be included in computing his total income will be nil there is no need to deduct tax. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HOSPET

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

194A on the NOTIONAL INTEREST of Rs.11,51,66,881/- and Rs.11,47,72,093/- respectively for the ITA No.1540/Bang/2018 & M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd., Bellary Page 4 of 42 assessment years, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The banks have remitted the TDS made to the account of the assessee, even though the assessee was prohibited from operating

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

194A on the NOTIONAL INTEREST of Rs.11,51,66,881/- and Rs.11,47,72,093/- respectively for the ITA No.1540/Bang/2018 & M/s. Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd., Bellary Page 4 of 42 assessment years, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The banks have remitted the TDS made to the account of the assessee, even though the assessee was prohibited from operating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

S.K.GOLDSMITHS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1(2), MANGALURU

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. S. K. Goldsmiths Industrial Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2), Vishwasoudha, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore. Kottara Chowki, Mangalore – 575 006. Pan : Aabas 4056 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram V. Roa, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2023

disallowed 30% of interest paid to nominal members on their investment in FDs. The AO held that nominal members are not regular members of assessee society and assessee ought to have deducted tax at source under section 194A

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances by treating the assessee as a company and added the same to the book profits is also not correct and filed a paper book of case laws in support of his argument. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the other issues disputed in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also covered by the orders

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances by treating the assessee as a company and added the same to the book profits is also not correct and filed a paper book of case laws in support of his argument. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the other issues disputed in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also covered by the orders

BANK OF BARODA ( ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances by treating the assessee as a company and added the same to the book profits is also not correct and filed a paper book of case laws in support of his argument. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the other issues disputed in the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 are also covered by the orders

S D M COLLEGE CO-OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act for Rs. 3,49,500/-. The rectification application filed under section 154 of the Act was also rejected by the CPC. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 6. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that being

SRI SRI VAISHNAVI PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,GANGAVATHI vs. ITO WARD 1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

194A(3)(v) of the Act is not applicable. As per this section of the Act, the Co-operative Societies are not required to withhold tax if the payment is made to members or any other Co-operative Society. Without prejudice, he further submitted that if the addition is confirmed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the addition

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

194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that\nthe Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society,\nwhich would be entitled to exemption or deduction under the special\nprovisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act.\n(Paragarph 15 of the Judgment)\n4. If the legislative intent

NAVAKARNATAKA PSS LIMITED ,HOSPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, Page 5 of 6 the provision 194A would not be applicable to a co-operative society paying interest to its members. Therefore the disallowance

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194A of the act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer denied the claim by holding that the assessee being a Souharda sahakari was not eligible to claim the benefit as provided u/s. 194A which is available only for co- operative societies. 4.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that disallowance

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 194A of the act. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer denied the claim by holding that the assessee being a Souharda sahakari was not eligible to claim the benefit as provided u/s. 194A which is available only for co- operative societies. 4.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that disallowance