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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\nPage 11 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same may be considered.\nThe Ld.DR strongly

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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\n\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\n\nPage 11 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same

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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\nPage 11 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same may be considered.\nThe Ld.DR strongly

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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\nPage 11 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same may be considered.\nThe Ld.DR strongly

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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\nPage 11 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same may be considered.\nThe Ld.DR strongly

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

C. SATEESH\nDeponent\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice, the condonation may\nbe granted to assessee for the issues in the present appeals to be\nconsidered on merits.\nPage 11 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\nThe Ld.AR submitted that all the affidavits in the appeals are\nidentical and the same may be considered.\nThe Ld.DR strongly

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

C. Sateesh, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to\n2 and paragraphs 4 to16 above are true to the best of my knowledge and that the contents of\nparagraph 3 are true to the best of my belief.\nPlace: Bengaluru\nDate: 14th December 2023\nHe submitted that in the interest of justice

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

House Construction Loans, Property Mortgage Loans and\nVehicle Loans. The Bye-laws of the society is enclosed and marked as\nAnnexure 1.\nb) For the impugned year, the Respondent filed the return of income\nclaiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nc) The learned AO disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Act as\ntheprinciple of mutuality does not exist between

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

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

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

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)(c

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 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

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Insofar as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or professions' is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections 28 to 44DB of the Act. Section 28 specifies various incomes which shall be chargeable to income tax under this head. Thereafter, Section