BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80p(2)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai867Bangalore641Cochin569Pune330Chennai276Ahmedabad174Panaji142Delhi129Kolkata102Visakhapatnam87Nagpur81Surat77Jaipur65Rajkot60Raipur59Hyderabad47Chandigarh46Lucknow45Indore40Jodhpur16Amritsar15Jabalpur14Karnataka12Varanasi10Cuttack8Telangana6Kerala6SC4Ranchi3Allahabad2Calcutta1Orissa1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)11Section 80P(2)(a)8Deduction6Section 14A5Section 80P(2)(d)5Disallowance5Addition to Income5Section 1484Section 80P4Section 56

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 201/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R.BiswalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

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

4
Section 2633
Business Income2

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

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

ITA 143/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda/S.NandaFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed the same. 4. On appeal, although the CIT(A) held that the assessee society’s activity is not in the nature of banking and consequently, it is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but so far as the interest is concerned, it is liable to be taxable

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 393/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

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 :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

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

ITA 392/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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 :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 80P(2)

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

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

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

ITA 142/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda/S.Nanda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8p

80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, disallowed the same. 4. On appeal, although the CIT(A) held that the assessee society’s activity is not in the nature of banking and consequently, it is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act but so far as the interest is concerned, it is liable to be taxable

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

ITA 72/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14ASection 43B

d. That the assessee does not fall under the purview of 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

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

ITA 384/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

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.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 115J

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

ITA 385/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

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.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 115J

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