SHREE SHARANAVASACESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NI HALINGALI,HALINGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs. 20,18,882/-. The AO thereafter initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

M/S. SHIMOGA DAVANGERE CHITRADURGA DIST. CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS SOC UNION LIMITED,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 271(1) (C) and other provisions of the Act; (Total tax effect: Rs.20,69,130/-) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK STAFF CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

271 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has not filed any valid, reasonable and cogent reason for not filing his return of income, even though the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act explicitly required him to file his Return of Income within the stipulated time. The penalty levied

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

271 [1] [c] of The Income tax Act , 1961, [the ACT] were made. Penalty for assessment year 2014 - 15 was levied for ₹8,33,092 and for assessment year 2015 - 16 for Rs. 931 1426/-. For both these assessment years, penalty orders and Appellate Orders are on the similar lines. ITA Nos.1662 & 1663/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 6 2. Facts

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

271 [1] [c] of The Income tax Act , 1961, [the ACT] were made. Penalty for assessment year 2014 - 15 was levied for ₹8,33,092 and for assessment year 2015 - 16 for Rs. 931 1426/-. For both these assessment years, penalty orders and Appellate Orders are on the similar lines. ITA Nos.1662 & 1663/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 6 2. Facts

THE NARAGUND TALUKA PRATHAMIKA SHIKSAK SHIKSAKIYAR CO OP S LIMITED ,NARGUND vs. ITO WARD 1 GADAG, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO also disallowed the donation claim of Rs. 94,700/-. As against the said Page 2 of 5 proceedings, the assessee filed the appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC had confirmed the order of the AO by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR , VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD , SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

80P of the Act. There is not a single line mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the source of funds or the provision of section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account

ITO WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD , SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

80P of the Act. There is not a single line mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the source of funds or the provision of section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account

ITO WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD, SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

80P of the Act. There is not a single line mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the source of funds or the provision of section 69A of the act or why the provisions are not applicable to the assessee. He deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without having a look at the books of account