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

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 68 of the Act which is only applicable in respect of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called and is not applicable to ordinary loans and in reproduction of the proviso in para 4.4, Ld. AO has conveniently and intendedly ignored the phrase "share Page 6 of 29 ITA No.1035/Bang/2023

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

194A(3)(v) has been so amended, section 80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative banks explicitly. 6. The CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that the character or nature of interest income received on the investment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co- operative banks is the same

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

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

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

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,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 ( 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

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSURU vs. SHRI. H OMKARAPPA (HUF), SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

3) of the Act by virtue of rule 6DD as the payment is made for purchasing the agricultural produce and purchasing from APMC Yard. The regular customers request the assessee to accept the DDs endorsed in its favour and pay cash to them. However, for maintaining the good relationship with the customers, the assessee encashes the DDs after they

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

194A, 194H & 194J of the Act respectively. In the event of non compliance of the said provision, a disallowance to the extent of 30% of such expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,70,37,666/- was made and added to the net profit of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order