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

d) of the Act and he also deleted addition made under section 69A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. 9. Learned DR relied on the Order of the AO and submitted that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

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:

d) of the Act. Page 12 of 13 9.3. Accordingly these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Grounds 5 -7: In respect of associate/nominal members, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 161 (SC) has held that the expression “Members” is not defined

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

d) in the order. Assessee has also not been able to place on record any correspondence that might have been there between it and the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Lack of enquiry into the aspect of the claim made by assessee for deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) is therefore glaring on record. However, what we find

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

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

d) of the Act and he also deleted addition made under section 69A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved from the Order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. 9. Learned DR relied on the Order of the AO and submitted that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

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

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

d) of the Act and it will be considered as income from other sources. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO treating such income as income from other sources. 16. Furthermore, the learned CIT(A) regarding the commission on E stamping found that the assessee has dealt with the general public in issuing E-Stamp. Therefore

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

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

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 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

house property owned by the assessee and therefore the disallowance made by the AO is not correct. The assessee also pointed out the mistake in the computation sheet and contended that in the assessment order, the total income has been determined at Rs. 3,09,103/- whereas by mistakenly in the computation sheet, the other interest income was taken

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

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

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(d

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 of Rs. 59,053/- only. The entire gross total income of Rs. 1,76,24,174/- claimed as deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. In the assessment proceeding, the AO found that the assessee is catering to the different classes of members having different rights with regard to participate in the share profit

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

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

D-0 '4,e Act apart from the Income Tax Act, the due date for filing of Income tax returns is 30th of September. 3. The order of Hon'ble CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi is bad in law and without considering the facts of the case relating to the disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20 dated 21.3.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income

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

In the result, the ITA No

D N Rama Reddy, s/o MrNarayanappa aged about 71 years, do hereby solemnlyaffirm and state on oath the following: 1. That I am the staff of The Metropolitan Co-operative 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

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

D E R Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dated 10.02.2015 of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee, a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka State Co-operative Act, renders financial services to its Page 2 of 7 members. It filed its return