INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 ITO, Vs. M/s. Brahmavara Vyavasaya Seva, Ward - 1, Head Office Unnathi, Brahmavar Udupi. Udupi Taluk, Udupi – 576 213. PAN: AAAAB 2992 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.Nos.10, 11, 12/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos.656

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 ITO, Vs. M/s. Brahmavara Vyavasaya Seva, Ward - 1, Head Office Unnathi, Brahmavar Udupi. Udupi Taluk, Udupi – 576 213. PAN: AAAAB 2992 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.Nos.10, 11, 12/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos.656

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.

B” (SMC) BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member Prathamika 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that the investments were made out of surplus funds and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the decision of PCIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 392 ITR 74 wherein it was held that the interest earned on deposits

THE BELTHANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SANGHA LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance made by the AO under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the Assessee is an Agricultural Co- Operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Society is engaged in accepting deposits from members and lending the same to its members. For the relevant assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LIMITED , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is primarily engaged in the business of banking and in view of the insertion of sub- 2 M/s.The Karnataka State Co-op.Ho.Fed.Ltd. section (4) to section 80P of the Act with effect from 001.04.2007, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIPTUR vs. SRIUDAYARAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

b) For the impugned year, the Respondent filed the return of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. c) The learned AO disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act as theprinciple of mutuality does not exist between_resident/regular_3 members and nominal members and hence, it is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowance of NPA provision would result in enhanced profits eligible for the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and consequently, there was no prejudice to the Revenue to justify revision u/s 263. 2.4 The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that it is incumbent on his part to point out a specific `error’ in the assessment order to assume jurisdiction

M/S. SAVANOOR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SAVANOOR, ,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Savanoor Primary Agricultural Vs. Ito, Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Savanoor Co-Operative Agricultural Puttur. Bank Ltd., Saanoor, Savanoor Puttur – 574 202, Karnataka. Pan : Aaeat 1118 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2024

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Savanoor Primary Agricultural Vs. ITO, Co-operative Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Savanoor Co-operative Agricultural Puttur. Bank Ltd., Saanoor, Savanoor Puttur – 574 202, Karnataka. PAN : AAEAT 1118 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Harsha J, Advocate Revenue by : Shri

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

80P of the Income-tax Act. We thus answer substantial questions of law B and C formulated and enumerated above.” 10.3 I have gone through the judgments relied upon by both the parties. In my opinion, the assessment year involved in the present appeal is A.Y. 2017-2018 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court

SREE CAUVERY SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1854 & 1855/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sree Cauvery Souharda Credit Sahakari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sangha Niyamitha, Ward – 1(1)(1), No.7, Kodava Samaja Building, Bangalore. 1st Main Road, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 002. PAN – AAAJS 2172 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sumana

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

b. addition to the above, administration cost shall be allowed as per section 57 of the income tax act 1961. Page 4 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 The Audited Balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account is attached herewith, the cost of funds is calculated from the Audited Balance sheet and profit and Loss Account, the respective ledgers accounts

NAGINI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

b. addition to the above, administration cost shall be allowed as per section 57 of the income tax act 1961. Page 4 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 The Audited Balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account is attached herewith, the cost of funds is calculated from the Audited Balance sheet and profit and Loss Account, the respective ledgers accounts

NAGINI COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

b. addition to the above, administration cost shall be allowed as per section 57 of the income tax act 1961. Page 4 of 15 ITA Nos. 25 to 27/Bang/2025 The Audited Balance sheet, Profit and Loss Account is attached herewith, the cost of funds is calculated from the Audited Balance sheet and profit and Loss Account, the respective ledgers accounts

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) holding that the appellant/assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. The Ld.AO therein held that the appellant/assessee is a "co-operative bank" and thus, was hit by the provisions of Section 80(P)(4) and was not entitled

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

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

KEDAMBADY KEYYUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P(4) is in the nature of a proviso to the main provision contained in section 80P(1) and (2). This proviso specifically excludes only co-operative banks, which are co-operative societies who must

KEDAMBADY KEYYUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUTTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

b) qua milk co-operative societies, the legislature expressly says so - which is not the case with section 80P(2)(a)(i); (V) That section 80P(4) is in the nature of a proviso to the main provision contained in section 80P(1) and (2). This proviso specifically excludes only co-operative banks, which are co-operative societies who must