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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

sections": [ "14A", "8D", "115JB", "250", "254", "143(3)", "211(2)", "11", "36(1)(viii)", "72A", "194A" ], "issues": "1. Whether the disallowance

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

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

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

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

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

3. The only issue involved in this appeal is regarding disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act of Rs.6,98,06,298 holding that no disallowance under this section

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(3

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

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

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

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

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, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuprathamika Krishi Pattina Vs The Income Tax Officer Sahakara Sangha Niymit Ward - 2 No. 350, Ward No. 15, Hospet 583201 Amaravathi Village, Hospet Tq. Ballari - 583201 Pan – Aaajp0326N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, Irs (Retd) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250//2022-23/1047496227(1) Dated 18.11.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Impugned Assessment Order Made U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated, 25-11-2019, Is Arbitrary & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Liable To Be Vacated As Void. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate: (I) That The Interest Income Accruing From The Investments Made In Statutory Compliance Of The Provisions Of The State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 Is Eligible For The Deduction As Business Income U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

disallowed the claim of expenditure under Section 57 of the Act and denying the deduction under Section 80P of Act & completed the assessment. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee filed detailed written submission which has been incorporated by the CIT(A) in his order. The learned

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

194A which is available only for co- operative societies. 4.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was also made for not deducting TDS by invoking the provisions of section 194H on the commission paid to the pigmy agents. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of The Mandya

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

194A which is available only for co- operative societies. 4.1. The Ld.AR further submitted that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was also made for not deducting TDS by invoking the provisions of section 194H on the commission paid to the pigmy agents. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of The Mandya

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.

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

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.

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other