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

4) of section 80P of the Act are not applicable. For the sake of better appreciation of facts, the provisions of section 80P are reproduced below:- “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

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

property and rights of the company, also should be treated as a banking business. No doubt, it is true, as contended by Sri Sesachala that the businesses referred to in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Regulation Act cannot be treated as a banking business within the meaning of clause (b) of section

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

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

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

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

4,95,014/- earned on the FD with Cooperative Bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(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

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

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:

4. In the instant case, it was noticed by the Ld.AO during assessment proceedings, that the assessee society was earning income not only from the members but majority of the income from the nominal/ Associate members. Taking into cognizance the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Citizen Co-op Society Ltd, Hyderabad v. ACIT

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

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

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

4. The assessee for the year under consideration declared gross total income of Rs. 1,76,24,174/- which consist of business income of Rs. 1,75,65,121/- and income from house property of Rs. 59,053/- only. The entire gross total income of Rs. 1,76,24,174/- claimed as deduction under section 80P

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

house property chargeable under section 22. ITA.1500, 1501/B/18 & ITA.77/B/2019 Page - 6 Court in Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 58 besides the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur, in Ballarpur Collieries v. CIT [1929] 4 ITC 255 (Nag), interpreting the said expression as covering all heads of income..... On the basis of the above

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

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

4) There are no any other activities which violate/attract the provisions of the Income Tax Act & the same is also not pointed out by the Auditor. 5) The assessee has offered income for tax under head income from House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P

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

4 to16 above are true to the best of my knowledge and that the contents of paragraph 3 are true to the best of my belief. Place: Bengaluru Date: 14th December 2023 WORN TO BEFORE ME MAMATHAN.K., BA.118. ADVOCATE & NOTARY PUBLIC GOVT OF INDIA 131 Thagian Roan. Kadronaham Circla, Pasanenapiha Nagar Borgaon, 480 970 Mob 99453 14206 NOTARY << MAMATHAN.K B.A.LL

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

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

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