UOH STAFF COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the A.O. and claimed that interest earned from fixed deposit with the nationalized banks is also eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act because the interest received is forming part of business of the assessee and therefore the same cannot be disallowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the

disallowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Reserve Bank Staff and Officers Credit Society Limited Vs. ITO in 4

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

80P(2)(a)(i). 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the proportionate expenditure on interest income earned from the deposits made on the principle of commercial expediency”. 3.1 Similar grounds were raised by the assessee in the other appeal i.e., ITA No.602/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21. 4. The appeal filed

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.01.2019 was served upon the assessee. Cooperative Electric Supply Society Ltd. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee society, during the subject year, had received interest

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.01.2019 was served upon the assessee. Cooperative Electric Supply Society Ltd. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee society, during the subject year, had received interest

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

disallowance was made under section 143(1) of the Act assessee filed a rectification application before Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore, however, the same was denied without giving any proper reasons and assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merits, however, he proceeded to decide the issue on technical

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

disallowance of Rs. 6,62,116/-.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co- operative Society, filed its return of income on 30.12.2020 admitting income of Rs.Nil on 30.12.2020. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) as well as Section

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 80P(2) was made in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act and not under section 154 of the Act. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee cannot challenge the denial of deduction under section 80P under the order of section 154 by relying on certain decisions and assessee

THE ADVOCATE MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

section 80P(2)(d) thereby, enhancing the 80P deduction but at the same time enhancing the total income also in view of other calculations, determining total income at Rs.43,12,740 as against declared income of Rs.31,06,406. In doing so, A.O. indirectly disallowed amount of Rs.20,68,583 towards insurance on Mediclaim policies of Members while arriving

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE ADVOCATES MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

section 80P(2)(d) thereby, enhancing the 80P deduction but at the same time enhancing the total income also in view of other calculations, determining total income at Rs.43,12,740 as against declared income of Rs.31,06,406. In doing so, A.O. indirectly disallowed amount of Rs.20,68,583 towards insurance on Mediclaim policies of Members while arriving

THE ADVOCATE MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.No.

section 80P(2)(d) thereby, enhancing the 80P deduction but at the same time enhancing the total income also in view of other calculations, determining total income at Rs.43,12,740 as against declared income of Rs.31,06,406. In doing so, A.O. indirectly disallowed amount of Rs.20,68,583 towards insurance on Mediclaim policies of Members while arriving

THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 80P of the Act, Assessing Officer opined that the assessee was not eligible for deduction. Hence, he disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee and added it to the returned income of the assessee and thus, completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and passed assessment order dt.23.12.2019. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer

THE CITIZEN CO-OP-SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.388/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Citizen Cooperative Vs. Dy.Cit Society Limited, Hyderabad Circle 9 (1) Pan:Aaaat3952F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 13/02/2025 Of The Learned Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) - Iv U/S 263 Of The Act Is Erroneous Both In Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) U/S 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Need To Be Quashed.

4. The Learned PCIT has erred in concluding that the Ld. AO has failed to verify the allowability of deduction under Section 80P, without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) regarding the specific deduction and had examined the same. 5. The Learned PCIT has failed to appreciate that the deduction under

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

4. From the balance sheet of the assessee, it is found that the assessee invested an amount of Rs.315,77,04,000/-in shares and other instruments. The assessee booked interest expenditure amounting to Rs.11830,57,12,000/- on deposits. It is also found that the assessee earned earned interest of Rs.16368,60,44,000/-. 4.1 During the course

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY WANKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MANCHIRIAL

Bench: Us:

4. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of the appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P

THE GHATKESAR FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDCHAL vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 80P(2)(a) of the Act has to be necessarily assessed under the head ‘income from other sources’. To reach this conclusion, the learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 188 Taxman 282 (SC) and Katlary Kariyana Merchant Shkari

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY ,RAMADURGAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P amounting to Rs.6,77,560/- towards interest income received from deposits in banks 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 of the Act dt.31.03.2021, assessee filed an appeal which was subsequently migrated to the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee 6. Aggrieved with

STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest income amounting to Rs 90,31,838/-. learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the same by order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on the ground that the assessee is a co-operative bank. Page 2 of 8 4

YADIKI PACS,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, Ms. Lavanya, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the JAO issuing notice under Section