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 6 of 18 from RBI for carrying on banking activities, therefore as per para 9 of the said judgment, it is to be termed as a co-operative society and section 80P

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 6 of 18 from RBI for carrying on banking activities, therefore as per para 9 of the said judgment, it is to be termed as a co-operative society and section 80P

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section 80P.\n(h)The revenue from e-stamping is 2,11,580 as opposed to\nthe Appellant's total revenue of ₹171,68

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

section 80P of the Income-tax Act. We thus answer substantial questions of law B and C formulated and enumerated above.” 10.3 I have gone through the judgments relied upon by both the parties. In my opinion, the assessment year involved in the present appeal is A.Y. 2017-2018 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

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

80P, and/or withdrawal of the said Circular no. 319 dated 11-1-1982 in the wake of insertion of bar by virtue of sub section (4) had not gone to adversely affect 'claim for exemption' from income tax as had been put forth by the "appellant RRB". The "appellant RRB" continues to be having the status of a "cooperative

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

80P, and/or withdrawal of the said Circular no. 319 dated 11-1-1982 in the wake of insertion of bar by virtue of sub section (4) had not gone to adversely affect 'claim for exemption' from income tax as had been put forth by the "appellant RRB". The "appellant RRB" continues to be having the status of a "cooperative

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

80P of the Act for an amount of Rs. 28,68,638/- 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80P of the Act would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, he prayed that the disallowance of assessee Society’s claim of deduction of interest income earned from co-operative banks may be restored. 13. The ld. A.R. on the other hand in his written submissions, submitted as follows

MINORITY CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, BAGALKOT,BAGALKOT vs. ITO W(1), BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.” 3.10 It is directed that in the event it is found that the interest is earned by the assessee from such commercial/cooperative banks that fall within the definition of “banking company’ as per section 2(c), Section 5(b) and holds license under section 22 of the Banking Regulation

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. 16.1 It is pertinent to deal with the case law relied on by the assessee through the learned AR of the assessee, i.e., M/s Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sangha vs. ITO (supra) dated 13th June