ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

section 80P(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. If the godown or warehouse is let out for the purpose of other than storage, processing or facilitating the marketing commodities, the income derived there from by a co-operative society would not be deductible u/s. 80P. Later, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Udaipur Sahakari Upbhokta Thok

M/S. HARICHANDRANPUR LAMPS ,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, KEONJHAR, KEONJHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Laxmi Prasad Sahulaxmi Prasad Sahulaxmi Prasad Sahu

2 | 5 ITA Nos.142 & 143/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 immediately for the business of providing credit facilities to members would fall under the category of ‘income from other sources’ taxable under section 56 of the Act and same would not qualify for deduction as business income under section 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

80P". Further it was noticed that the surplus funds were parked in the Odisha State Cooperative Bank Limited. He concluded that the Odisha State Cooperative Bank Limited is a urban commercial bank and does not fall under the purview of the cooperative society as referred in Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the AO disallowed

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

80P". Further it was noticed that the surplus funds were parked in the Odisha State Cooperative Bank Limited. He concluded that the Odisha State Cooperative Bank Limited is a urban commercial bank and does not fall under the purview of the cooperative society as referred in Section 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the AO disallowed

THE BALASORE BHADRAK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

2)(a)(i) r.w.s. 80P(4) dismissed by the C1T(A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.6 In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the above additional ground filed by the appellant and the same is rejected.” 4. The assessee has filed written submission, wherein, it has been contended that

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

2(u) of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) Act, 1981 and additionally did not fall under the purview of Section 80P(4) of the Act. b) The accounts of the Appellant had been statutorily audited by auditors appointed by NABARD and further its activities including the maintenance of records, documents vouchers, etc. were regulated, monitored

THE CUTTACK CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 The Cuttack Credit Co The Cuttack Credit Co-Operative Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Society Ltd., A.D. Market, Link Society Ltd., A.D. Market, Link Road, Cuttack Road, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aadat 5204 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal N.R.Biswal, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17 / 5 /2022 O R D E R

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act as the interest has been earned from other co-operative societies including cooperative bank and disallowed

M/S. HARICHANDRANPUR LAMPS ,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, KEONJHAR, KEONJHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 011 -12 & 20 12- 13 immediately for the business of providing credit facilities to members would fall under the category of ‘income from other sources’ taxable under section 56 of the Act and same would not qualify for deduction as business income under section 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK (SUCCEEDED BY ODISHA GRAMYA BANK),BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Section 80P(4) of the I.T.Act and therefore the denial of claim of deduction u/s.80P of the I.T Act by the lower authorities is arbitrary, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. e. That the CBDT Circular relied on by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to the express provisions

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

disallowance of interest on FDR & Flexi deposit treating the same as revenue receipt. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company filed its return of income electronically on 26.09.2013 disclosing a loss of Rs.11,85,939/-, however a tax was paid u/s.115JB of the Act on an income of Rs.92

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

disallowance of interest on FDR & Flexi deposit treating the same as revenue receipt. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company filed its return of income electronically on 26.09.2013 disclosing a loss of Rs.11,85,939/-, however a tax was paid u/s.115JB of the Act on an income of Rs.92