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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 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

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

68,500 Bank Ltd 29,76,150 Tumkur Grain Merchant co-op 2,87,500 Bank Ltd 32,72,084 Bharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd 9,23,847 2,15,220 Subramanyeshwara co-op Bank Ltd 2,50,000 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 44 Bharat

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

80P of the Act amounting to Rs.34,79,909/- and this ground was upheld.\nii) With regard to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that that the assessee is a co-operative society as per section 2(19) of the Act. In view of this the assessee is exempt from deduction

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

2)(a)(i) of the Act. This issue is also remitted to the files of the A.O. to decide afresh as discussed in para 6 to 9 above. 10.1 The learned DR made one more objection that in this case, the assessee has not filed return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The learned DR placed

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

section 144B of the Act dated 21.09.2022 was set aside to make a fresh assessment. 2. The assessee in the memo of appeal raised multiple grounds numbered 6 to 17, which we, for the sake of brevity and convenience are not inclined to reproduce here. Page 2 of 11 3. The brief facts of the case on hand

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

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. It is not a business income\ntaxable

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

80P(2)(a) cannot be allowed u/s\n80P(2)(d) just because the investments have been shifted\nfrom a scheduled bank to a co-operative bank. When done\nso, the interest income so earned still continues to be not\nattributable to its business operations and hence it is to be\nassessed to tax under head income from other sources

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

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of\nRs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as\nper the normal provisions of the Act.\n3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in\nappeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Id. CIT(A) partly allowed the\nappeal