INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowing, allowable Deduction of Interest Income validly Claimed for Rs. 22867733/- by incorrectly interpreting provision of Section 80P (2) (d) and 80P(4

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

section (4) of Sec. 80P was that the co-operative banks which were functioning at par with other banks would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(4) of the Act. Insofar Page 12 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 the reliance placed

M/S NANDA NAGAR SAHKARI SAKH SANTHA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Nanda Nagar Ito-3(3) Sahkari Sakh Sanstha Range-3 बनाम/ C/O M. Mehta & Co., Indore Vs. 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaaan1784B

4. Aggrieved by this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions sustained the disallowances. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only issue in this appeal is that whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(ia) of the Act, qua the income received

SIDDHLAXMI SAKH SAHAKARITA MY,,INDORE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) W,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing the deduction under sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act is under challenged. 3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4

SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 15,51,612/- claimed under section 80P of the Act simply for the reason that return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act more so when return of income was duly filed under section 139 of the Act and deduction was also allowable on merits

M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Dcit, Ratlam Bank Maryadit, Vs. Mhow-Neemuch Road, Mandsaur (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaatj2383F Revenue By Shri Lalchand, Cit Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande,Ca Date Of Hearing 25.7.2018 Date Of 17.8.2018 Pronouncement

disallowance. However, before the Ld. CIT(A) the claim was specifically made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The special provision made by the assessee is also for bad and doubtful debt. The claim made mentioning the wrong section should not deprive the assessee for allowing the same while computing the income if the same is allowable

SHREE SIDH BALAJI SAKH SAHKARITA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. ASST DIRECTOR CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Shree Sidh Balaji Sakh Assistant Director Cpc, Sahkarita Maryadit, Bangalore बनाम/ Ramghat Marg, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaja57480G Assessee By Ms.Sonam Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H.Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2024

section 80AC, were within power to hold that deduction u/s 80P was not allowable to assessee for non-filing of return upto 31.08.2019 which was due date for filing of return u/s 139(1). 7. However, the case of assessee requires us to go further and look other legal provisions as advanced by Ld. AR. Firstly, we need to check

NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KARMCHARI KALYAN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

80P was in order? Basically, the case relates to AY 2019-20 and the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) was 31.08.2019 but the assessee filed return belatedly u/s 139(4) on 30.09.2020. Therefore, the AO made impugned disallowance while processing assessee’s return u/s 143(1) on the strength of section

PRATHMIK KRASI SAKH SAHKA RI SAMITI MARYADIT SAKHTALI,MANDSAUR vs. ITO, MANDSAUR, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2021-22 Prathmik Krasi Sakh Ito, Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Mandsaur Sakhtali, बनाम/ 1, Sakhtali, Sitamau, Vs. Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaajp0382L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P made by AO and upheld by CIT(A). 4. Ld. AR for assessee at first submitted following working of deduction of Rs. 24,06,897/- claimed by assessee in his Written-Synopsis: Page 2 of 7 Prathmik Krasi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Sakhtali ITA No. 299/Ind/2025 – AY 2021-22 5. Thereafter, Ld. AR carried

M/S VIDISHA BHOPAL KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,BHOPAL vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble J.M. & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble A.M.

Section 80P since the exclusion in the Explanation is specific and applied only to a Cooperative Bank and is therefore to be construed strictly? 4. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.32,23,269/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing

M/S VIDISHA BHOPAL KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,BHOPAL vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble J.M. & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble A.M.

Section 80P since the exclusion in the Explanation is specific and applied only to a Cooperative Bank and is therefore to be construed strictly? 4. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.32,23,269/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing

M. P POLICE SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2(1), UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm.P. Police Sakh Sahakari Ito 2(1), Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain 32Nd Battalion, Vs. Dewas Road Nagari, Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5551C Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R

disallowance u/s 80P at Rs.23,92,876/- on observing that the assessee has earned the alleged sum towards the interest earned from the scheduled banks. Ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee as follows: 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

section 80P of the Income tax Act. The Appellant prays that the said disallowance be directed to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,77,34,160 to the total income of assessee. 4

GAJRA GEARR KAMGAR SSHAKARI SANSTHA MY.,DEWAS vs. THE DCIT,CPC , BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Gajra Gears Kamgar Dcit, Cpc Sahakari Sanstha Bangalore Maryadit, बनाम/ C/O Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd., Station Road, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabag2492C Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 80AC. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 4. Presently, the controversy between assessee and revenue is whether the deduction u/s 80P could be disallowed