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

f) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act should be understood as making an exception to clause (a)(i) of sub-section (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

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

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

F Block, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore North, Bangalore – 560 092. PAN – AABAS 1364 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Aprameya K, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the NFAC

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

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

f M /MO to ;M/PS to MoS(R)/OSD to MoSi(R) 2. PPS to Secretary (Revenue) 3. Chairman (CBDT), All Members, Cenha! Board of Direct Taxes 4 Ali Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr DsGIT/DsGIT 5. Ali Joint Secretaries/CsIT, CBDT 6 Directors/Deputy Secretaries/Under Secretaries of Central Board of Direct Taxes 7 ADG(Systems)-4 with request to place the order on official website

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

f) of the KCS Act, and (c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans), advanced in the ordinary course, as any business would do as a staff welfare measure. Page 4 of 48 ITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023 2.5 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the claim under

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

80P, Doddakannellii, Income-tax, Sarjapur Road, Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore 560 035 Bangalore. PAN: AAACW 0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Huilgol, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member The appeal filed by the assessee

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

f) CIT vs. Gokaldas Images Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2020) TaxCorp DT 83685 (Karnataka) 6. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. Page 5 of 39 7. Considering the rival submissions, we note that allocation of common expenses has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

80P, Doddakannellii Deputy Commissioner of Sarjapur Road Income-tax Vs. Bangalore 560 035 Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore PAN NO : AAACW0387R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. AR Respondent by : Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal filed

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

f) Depletion in the value of HTM category of investments – Rs.4,60,71,28,270/-. g) Write off of investments in Pennar Aluminium - Rs.24,00,000/- ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 4 of 42 h) Broken period interest – Rs.45,17,75,000/- . 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, assessee- bank preferred an appeal before