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

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

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

disallows certain expenditures\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the Lax. It i4 equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14,4 of the Act, there\nhas

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

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

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

v) of the Act excluding the\nCooperative Banks from the definition of "Co-operative Society" by\nFinance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source\nunder Section 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

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)(v

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. 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

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

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

3 persons involved in this case viz., the assessee, his CA Shri Sharanagouda Patil and Shri Prakash R. Badiger, Advocate, who are required to explain the delay. They are not illiterate and they very well know the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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 VYAVASAYA 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

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA 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.\nAs 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

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled