SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

4 to section 80P of the Act. However, to hold a cooperative society as a cooperative bank it necessary that impugned bank hold banking license from RBI carrying out the banking business as per the provision of banking regulation Act. Hence, we hold that if SUCO Bank does not hold banking license and provisions of banking regulation

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

4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage

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

80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society …..". The words "in ITA Nos. 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

80P(4) are significant. They are: "The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society …..". The words "in ITA Nos. 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

4 of CO and Ground No. 2 of Department’s appeal : Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the interest income from investments in various co-operative societies and banks are entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The details of the interest

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

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

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

4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

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

4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

68,097/- in Chikmagalur District Page 2 of 8 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issue on 24.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring Nil income. Assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted. iii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/- and 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 of the section 194J & 194H of the Act respectively & therefore

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

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

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

section 80P(4).” 3. The AO further observed that the assessee has debited Rs. 1.00/- lakh towards audit fee and pigmy commission of Rs.5,68

BHAVASAR NAMDEV SIMPI SAMAJ SAHAKAR SANGH LTD,DANDELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

68,438/- and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not required to file return of income because of its Page 6 of 8 income below the threshold limit of tax and assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2). We reject this arguments of the ld. AR since the deduction can be claimed under

M/S. ALLSTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

68,037/- on the Short Term Deposits made by it to the tune of Rs. 6,46,88,606/- out of its Surplus Funds temporarily parked in the Current Account held in Citi Bank, Hong Kong and also earned interest of Rs. 6,02,309/- from the Advances of loans to its staff members. The deduction in respect of both

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 of the Act, we found substance in the submissions of learned DR that this issue needs to be examined afresh in light of section

SHREE JAGADGURU MOUNESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT KERUR,BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 80A(5), deduction can be claimed only after filing return within specified time limit. Hence deduction u/s. 80P of Rs.28,92,878 was denied and brought to tax. 4. Regarding the cash deposits during demonetisation period, the AO further noted that as per RBI letter dated 08.11.2016 and Govt. of India Gazette Notification dated 08.11.2016 the assessee

SRITHERUMALLESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Each Of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves the leave of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify all or any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The brief