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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80P of the Act amounting to Rs.34,79,909/- and this ground was upheld. ii) 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

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

2)(a)(1). ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 18 of 27 42. Here itself, it would not be out of place to mention that status of "cooperative society" had been conferred on Regional Rural Banks, as the "appellant RRB" is, by virtue of section 22 read with section 32 of Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, and not by circular

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

2)(a)(1). ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 18 of 27 42. Here itself, it would not be out of place to mention that status of "cooperative society" had been conferred on Regional Rural Banks, as the "appellant RRB" is, by virtue of section 22 read with section 32 of Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, and not by circular

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

2)(C) on income from PDS, the same is not allowable as deduction for the reason that ROI was not filed (within time allowed) thereby disentitling the appellant u/s 80A(5) of the Act. As for the provisions made by the appellant (discussed supra) and claimed as deduction, they are in the nature of unascertained liabilities and thus not allowed

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

2)(C) on income from PDS, the same is not allowable as deduction for the reason that ROI was not filed (within time allowed) thereby disentitling the appellant u/s 80A(5) of the Act. As for the provisions made by the appellant (discussed supra) and claimed as deduction, they are in the nature of unascertained liabilities and thus not allowed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,500 Tumkur Grain Merchant co-op Bank Ltd 32,72,084 2,87,500 Bharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd 9,23,847 2,15,220 Subramanyeshwara co-op Bank Ltd 2,50,000 Bharat Co-op Bank Ltd 7,12,500 Grain Merchant Co-op Bank Ltd 5,62,500 1,03,463 Karnataka State Co-operative Apex

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

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Canara Bank Staff Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 7(2)(2), No.26, 8Th Main Road, Bengaluru. 6Th Cross, Sampangiramanagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaaac 0152 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna A, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. The order of the learned AO in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2

YEDAMANGALA VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITHA,YEDAMANGALA, SULLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for ₹ 25,68,706/- only. The assessee was selected for scrutiny

SHREE BASAVESHWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,HUNGUND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

2(24)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Part V of the Banking Regulation Act and the facts of the case, the assessee co-operative credit society is held to be a 'Primary Cooperative Bank' Hence, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under sec.80P in view of the provisions of section 80P

THE NARAGUND TALUKA PRATHAMIKA SHIKSAK SHIKSAKIYAR CO OP CREDIT S LIMITED ,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessing officer had made an addition of Rs. 3,09,103/- being the interest received on savings bank and other incomes and taxed the same under the Page 2 of 8 head income from other sources. In the assessment order

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

80P(2) of the Act, following the Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 issued by the CBDT. Accordingly, this ground is also allowed in favour of the assessee. Further, in respect of addition made under section 68

SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,KARKALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

68,554/- in respect of the profits earned by the appellant M/s. Sri Ananthapadmanabha Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Karkala Page 2 of 8 from the business of providing credit facilities to its members under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] erred in holding that the business of providing credit