THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. THE TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the extent of Rs.3,34,970/-. The 3 said

M/S THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: B.S PATIL,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

disallowing the claim of the appellant to deduct the cost and expenditure incurred in earning income under the head “income from other sources”. 2. The appellant is a Co-operative Society in the business of marketing agricultural produce and provide credit facilities to its members. For the assessment years 1991-92 to 1999-2000, appellant had claimed deduction under Section

MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

2. This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 969/Bang/2023 dated 02.01.2024, relating to the Assessment Year 2017–18. The assessee is assessed in the status of an Association of Persons

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

80P, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560035. ...APPELLANT (By Sri Venkataraman, Senior Counsel for Dr.R.B.Krishna, Adv.) AND : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), 3rd Floor, Central Revenue Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

80P, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560035. ...APPELLANT (By Sri Venkataraman, Senior Counsel for Dr.R.B.Krishna, Adv.) AND : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), 3rd Floor, Central Revenue Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order

LOKMANYA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of

disallowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

PATIL CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of

disallowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

BANNANJE GRAHAKARA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHARAKA SANGHA LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction. 4.1 The Assessing Officer further

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. KURUHINSHETTY URBAN CO-OP

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: H.BILLAPPA,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

80P(4) and Explanation to the said section? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts by not sustaining the disallowance made by the assessing authority u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting tax on the payment of pigmy commission? 2

SRI.BAPOOJI PATTIN SOUHARD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the

Bench: H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,B.VEERAPPA

2. The present Income Tax Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 31.10.2017 made in ITA No.827/Bang/2017, Assessment Year 2013-14 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore allowing the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-nova assessment in accordance with law. 3. The present appellant – Assessee

SHREE SIDDESHWAR SOUHARDHANA, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the appellant had invested its surplus in Bilagi Sugar Mills Ltd., Badagandi and Bilagi Pattana Sahakari Bank, Bilagi. The interest earned on these investments was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. He held that the assessee had invested

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S BAPOOJI PATTIN

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Which Came To Be Allowed. Aggrieved By The Same, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Revenue Before The Itat. The Itat Dismissed The Same.

disallowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SWARNA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

2. It is stated that the petitioner had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 declaring an amount of Rs.16,68,267/- as being profits and gains of its business after having claimed deduction of Rs.16,54,031/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short). 3 3. It is further

SHRI MANJUNATHESHWARA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

2. The respondent No.2 invoking Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘I.T. Act’ for brevity) has made an addition of Rs.24,05,000/- to the income of the petitioner while holding that SBNs deposited by the petitioner during demonetization are liable to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’. Accordingly, deduction was disallowed under Section 80P

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallowed u/s 57(i) of the Act as interest on non-SLR securities is income from other sources.” 2. Clause (id) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act provides that income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, if, the income is not chargeable

CORPORATION BANK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallowed u/s 57(i) of the Act as interest on non-SLR securities is income from other sources.” 2. Clause (id) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act provides that income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, if, the income is not chargeable

KARNATAKA BANK LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy

disallowed u/s 57(i) of the Act as interest on 5 non-SLR securities is income from other sources.” 2. Clause (id) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Act provides that income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, if, the income is not chargeable

UNIVERSAL CREDIT SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

disallowing deductions of income as claimed by the petitioner under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘I.T. Act’ for brevity