KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK AGRI PRO CO OP MARKETING SOCIETY,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnarajapet Taluk Agri Pro Co-Op Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Marketing Society Ltd., Mysore. K. R. Pet, K. R. Pet Taluk, Mandya 571 426. Pan : Aaaak 4566 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shankar Gowda H, Fca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

house property amounting to Rs. 1,66,740.00, and Income from other source amounting to Rs. 7,00,160.00 which comprises of 1. Interest received from MDCC 3,91,931.00 Bank 2. Share Dividend received from 2,00,000.00 IFFCO Share 3. Dividend received from 1,07,000.00 KRIBHCO 4. Interest received from 1,229.00 SBI, AXIS Bank & IT Refund

THE CHITRADURGA CITY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,CHITRADURGA vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

2) of section 80P of the Act wherein it is provided that if a co-operative society carrying on banking business receives income from house property

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR vs. SRI UDAYRAVI CREDIT CO-OP, TIPTUR

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

House Construction Loans, Property Mortgage Loans and Vehicle Loans. The Bye-laws of the society is enclosed and marked as Annexure 1. 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

M/S. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiita. No. 1306/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Service The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd., Ward – 1, Puttur – Ujire, 574 201. Belthangady – 574 240. Vs. Pan: Aaaju0058J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit.(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai, Jm. Present Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Dated 14/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Mangaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On The Following Grounds:

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of definition of that expression as contained in the concerned co-operative societies Act. In view of this, the facts are to be examined in the light of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we remit this issue

SIDDHARATHA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

2)(a)(i) of the Act in the given facts. 20.1 Regarding the first question, we note that the assessee, a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, is engaged primarily in providing credit facilities to its members and accepting deposits. The authorities below disallowed the entire deduction under section 80P of the Act solely

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6) The claim of deduction is duly examined and found that the same is as per provisions of the Act. 7) The case of the assessee falls in the category of providing credit facilities

M/S. RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Rythara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hesaraghatta, Opp. Bmtc Bus Stop, Hesaraghatta Mainroad, Bangalore-560 088 ….Appellant Pan Aacar1587N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2)(5), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

house property, business income and interest income. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 2.11.2016. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and e-Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the assessee has furnished copies of computation of income, Balance Sheet, Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BAGALKOT vs. SHRI BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT , BAGALKOT

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

80P. (1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee. (2) The sums

THE IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

house property of Rs.1,37,257, loss from business of (-) Rs.87,37,294 and income from other sources of Rs.98,49,424, resultantly net taxable income was declared of Rs.12,49,887 and claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs.12,49,887. Accordingly there was a net taxable income of NIL. 3. The return was processed

SHRI. GURULINGESHWAR SOUHARD PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SINDAGI,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Ms. Shri Gurulingeshwar Souhard Pattin Sahakari Vs. Dcit - 3(3)(1), Niyamit Sindagi, Hmt Building, 1, Main Road, Bangalore. Sindagi – 586 128,Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 1983 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veeranna M Murgod, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

House Building Co-operative Society Ltd vs ITO W-2 MYSURU in ITA No. 93/2024 order dated 16th Sep 2025 in regard to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 7. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that here the dispute is on 2 issues

THE NARAGUND TALUKA PRATHAMIKA SHIKSAK SHIKSAKIYAR CO OP CREDIT S LIMITED ,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessing officer had made an addition of Rs. 3,09,103/- being the interest received on savings bank and other incomes and taxed the same under the Page 2 of 8 head income from other sources. In the assessment order

ITO, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. SAHAKARA NAGAR CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

house property. The AO held that the assessee cannot be allowed to compute income as per section 22 of the Act. As such the AO held the receipt covered under section 80P(2

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

80P(2)(d). In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Housing Cooperative Society and filed return of income for AY 2009-10. Thereafter the AO had issued notice u/s.148 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed the return of income declaring nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P2

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

property (64,149.00) b) Income from Business 50,04,395.00 c) Income from other sources 38,58,473.00 ---------------- 87,98,719.00 Less: Deduction u/s. 80 C 1,50,000.00 80 TTA 10,000.00 80 IA 50,04,395.00 ---------------- 56,64,395.00 ---------------- 36,34,320.00 ========== Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 3 of 14 2.2. The book profit computed

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

property exceeding a specified floor area, whether by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; or (ii) is the owner or the lessee of a motor vehicle other than a two-wheeled motor vehicle, whether having any detachable side car having extra wheel attached to such two-wheeled motor vehicle

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 80P(2)(a)(i) in the pending appeals has been challenged by the assessee for the years under consideration in following grounds: Page 14 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 Appeal No. Assessment Year Ground Number ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 2012-13 2, 5, 6 ITA No. 1054/Bang/2023 2013-14 3, 6, 7 ITA No. 1055/Bang/2023 2014-15 2

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Housing Society limited who has been working with the team which oversees the accounts departments and Income tax Proceedings. The appellant filed appeals before Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, against the orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. 2. For AY 2018-19 the order

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S VASAVI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

house property since the appellant had computed income of Rs.1,69,910/- out of Rs.3,23,447/- declared from this source as against Rs.4,98,851/- shown in the profit and loss account. In completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the appellant was determined at Rs.55,37,344/- denying the appellant the benefit