MR. SANDEEP SAMANTHA,MANGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Sandeep Samantha, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of D.No.2-1-7/7, Shop No.2, Income-Tax, Manasa Residency, Chilimbi, Urwa, Cpc- Tds, Mangaluru – 575 006. Ghaziabad. Pan : Axlps 5874 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Add. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Mangaluru Dated 16.01.2019 For Assessment Year 2016-17 In Respect Of Filing Of Form No.26Q For Quarter No.1 Of The Financial Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

68 ITD 390 (Mumbai). The object of introducing section 234E to curb a situation where tax was used to be deducted but statement would not be uploaded by the assessees and such inaction on the part of the assessee would deprive the department to give credit to the person in whose account tax was deducted. In the instant case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act\nwhich is only applicable in respect of share application money,\nshare capital, share premium or any such amount by\nwhatever name called and is not applicable to ordinary loans\nand in reproduction of the proviso in para 4.4, Ld. AO has\nconveniently and intendedly ignored the phrase \"share\n\nPage 6 of 29\nITA

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

3 treating deposits made into bank accounts as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by making additions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 4 Rs.4,24,910 1961 for non-deduction of TDS under section 194A

SRI SRI VAISHNAVI PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,GANGAVATHI vs. ITO WARD 1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

68 of the Act and applied section 115BBE of the Act. for the said addition. Page 3 of 6 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail considering the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the Order

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

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

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

194A of the Act which is a section appearing in Part XVIIB of the Act, the Assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source where interest paid is in excess of Rs.10,000/- per annum. During the assessment proceedings it was noticed by the AO that the Assessee has paid total interest of Rs 234,62,57,000/- during

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1& TPS, BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

68 & 69/Bang/2023 Page 12 of 18 relation to" can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a co-operative Society from a Co- operative Bank. This exclusion by section 80P(4) of the Act even though without any amendment in section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

68 & 69/Bang/2023 Page 12 of 18 relation to" can include within its ambit and scope even the interest income earned by the respondent-assessee, a co-operative Society from a Co- operative Bank. This exclusion by section 80P(4) of the Act even though without any amendment in section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is sufficient

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

68,638/- only. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 4. The Ld. PCIT, Bengaluru upon examination of the assessment records was of the view that the assessment order passed by the AO was without making necessary enquiries or verification and it was prejudicial to the interest

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co- operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would

M/S. VOLVO GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

68 but no invoices Biocon. Accordingly, since no received from the amount was ultimately found to be vendors payable, there was no requirement to deduct TDS and hence, the provisions of section 201 were not applicable (refer Para 10.3 of Biocon). Page 7 of 31 3. Provision created for 9,46,447 The aforesaid payments pertain to 69 payments

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

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

68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted.\niii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/-\nand commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is of the view that the assessee has not complied with the provisions\n\nof the section 194J & 194H of the Act respectively

BIOCON LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

68,91,563/- u/s 201(1). He also charged interest of Rs.40,53,975/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the expenses aggregating to Rs.22,69,28,947/- are provisions made at the yearend at the time of finalisation of accounts for known expenses and losses (hereinafter called “yearend provisions

BANK OF BARODA ( ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

ABHINAVASRI VIVIDODESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA KANAKAGIRI ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

section 40(a)(ia) for not withholding the tax on audit fees debited to profit and loss account is concerned the same is not covered by the provisions of 194A(3) of Act. Therefore the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on Audit fees paid. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.14,100/- is confirmed.” 4. Being