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 claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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 claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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 claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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 claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

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(2

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(2

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(2

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(2

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(2

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(2

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

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur [herein after Pustikar Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd. “Ld.CIT(A)”] both dated 24. 09.2019 & 25.02.2020 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since, the facts of both the cases

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

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur [herein after Pustikar Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd. “Ld.CIT(A)”] both dated 24. 09.2019 & 25.02.2020 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since, the facts of both the cases

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

D E R Per Bench: The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / ADDL /JCIT (A)-7 Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from