ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a Gramin Bank Act whose primary object is not to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other cooperative societies and not member of the public. Thus, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank and not a co-operative bank would not eligible for deduction u/s 80P

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P (2)(d) of the Act. 3. In appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition vide para 5 of the impugned order as under: “5.1.1 This ground relates to challenging the denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of I.T. Act on interest income received from Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd. and Central

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, we taken ITA No. 68/Jodh/2022as the lead case. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1) Whether Department is bound to follow the order of Jurisdictional ITAT(Jodhpur

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, we taken ITA No. 68/Jodh/2022as the lead case. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1) Whether Department is bound to follow the order of Jurisdictional ITAT(Jodhpur

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, we taken ITA No. 68/Jodh/2022as the lead case. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1) Whether Department is bound to follow the order of Jurisdictional ITAT(Jodhpur

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, we taken ITA No. 68/Jodh/2022as the lead case. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1) Whether Department is bound to follow the order of Jurisdictional ITAT(Jodhpur

ITO, WARD-1(5), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PUSHTIKAR SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD., JODHPUR

1)(cca) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1946. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank by ignoring that the assessee fulfilled conditions applicable to cooperative banks as per Part V of the Banking Regulation

ITO, WARD-1(5), JODHPUR vs. PUSTIKAR SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD., JODHPUR

1)(cca) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1946. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not cooperative bank by ignoring that the assessee fulfilled conditions applicable to cooperative banks as per Part V of the Banking Regulation

BALOTRA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. ,BALOTRA, BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Balotra Cooperative Vs The Pr. Cit Marketing Society Ltd. Jodhpur-1 Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab 0204 C

disallow the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act was examined by the Tribunal. It was held as under:- “8....We are of the considered view, that though the co-operative banks to the insertion of sub-section (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Se. 80P