UDAYA SOUHARDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been instituted by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/10/2025 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however the effective issue raised is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of the deduction under\nsection 80P was made specifically as it relates to e-stamping\nincome.\n20.2 The income from e-stamp vending does not alter the\nposition with respect to the deduction under section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2

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

section 80P(2)(e) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,39,200/-. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction due to the absence

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

e-mail account regularly as most of the assessees are not\ntechnical persons or well versed in electronic media or social media. Being\nso, the assessee has failed to take correct steps in the course of faceless\nassessment/appeal proceedings.\n4.2 Thus, the delay of 561 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is\nto be condoned in view

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

e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative

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

e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative

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

e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative

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

e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative

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

In the result, this issue in ITA No

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

e) of the Act, whereas in the present case, it is under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Hence, the income by way of interest earned by deposit or investment of idle or surplus funds does not change its character irrespective of the fact whether such income of interest is earned from a schedule bank or a co-operative

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.

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 and 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