M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

section 8oP of the Act.” ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 27 7. In addition to the above written synopsis, the ld.AR argued on the legal issue in regard to eligibility of claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act by holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank and it is a cooperative society, therefore, the sec.80P(iv) will

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date

M/S GRAIN MERCHANT SOCIETY,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD.2, TUMKUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

reassessment was completed under Section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act vide order dt.10.2.2014, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.14,45,866 by disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P

SURABHI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

reassess is not valid as the issue fell within Chapter VI-A. For deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), the matter

M/S. AKSHAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

80P will be due to mere change of opinion. It has been held in the following decisions that even if the reassessment is in accordance with the proviso to section

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nPAN NO: AAACC6106G\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessmentYear: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAssessme

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

M/S. ING VYSYA BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPEATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 27.12.2018 was dismissed. Page 2 of 6 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

80P; (e) "housing finance company" means a public company formed or registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 38 of 49 (f) "public company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

80P; (e) "housing finance company" means a public company formed or registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes; ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 38 of 49 (f) "public company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section

KANAKA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

section 80P(2) should be considered while granting deduction. 7. Considering the rival submissions we note that the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) against the reassessment

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.

reassessment order was passed wherein the addition of Rs.1,71,32,728/- was made to the total income of the assessee and further it was held that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the written submission was made by the assessee

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.

reassessment order was passed wherein the addition of Rs.1,71,32,728/- was made to the total income of the assessee and further it was held that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the written submission was made by the assessee

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.

reassessment order was passed wherein the addition of Rs.1,71,32,728/- was made to the total income of the assessee and further it was held that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the written submission was made by the assessee

SURABHI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15

80P. Since the assessee is not entitled for the above exemption, the same has been excessively claimed by the assessee. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that an amount of Rs. 1,53,81,509/- Lakhs which should have been offered to tax, has escaped assessment. Hence, I propose to re-open the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section