MADHU SOUHARDA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Act, on the ground of non-filing of return of income, can be made only by invoking Section 80AC of the Act. However, Section 80AC has been made applicable to Section 80P of the Act by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2018, i.e., from the Assessment Year 2018–19. Since

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

4. The Assessing Officer vide final order dated 25.01.2012 had held that the Assessee was not eligible for any deduction under Section 80JJ(AA) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also held that since the Assessee had not deducted tax at source on the lease rentals for the cars/vehicles in terms of Section 194-C of the Act, the expenditure

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

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 ostensibly on the ground that the said amount of income was earned by the assessee in the form of interest from deposits in the Co- operative Banks. Thus it should be brought to tax under the head “other sources”. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, on this count. Therefore

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 the Commissioner of 3 Income Tax (Appeals) which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the ITAT. The ITAT dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal is preferred under Section

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 the Commissioner of 3 Income Tax (Appeals) which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the ITAT. The ITAT dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal is preferred under Section

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

4. The Tribunal by a combined order dated 09.11.2004 allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent holding that the interest income was not liable for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 5. We have heard Sri.A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

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 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. 3 Hence, this appeal is preferred under Section

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

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

disallowed the provision for interest payable on deposits and has made certain additions. It is held that no deduction could be allowed under Section 80P of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has transacted with nominal members and that its interest on investments was taxable under the head ‘Income from other Sources’. 4

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANR vs. THE BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL

Bench: R.DEVDAS,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of such interest paid to the members without TDS, was liable to be made as per the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4. Both the learned counsel at Bar fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the CBTD Circular No.19/2015 holding that such Co-operative Banks

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

4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3588-DB ITA No. 55 of 2025 income from fixed deposits and investments made with a nationalized bank and the SCDCC Bank. Applying the provisions of Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed

SHREE SIDDESHWAR SOUHARDHANA, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. He held that the assessee had invested its surplus as deposit in a private limited company and therefore income received is not relatable to the business of the assessee company and therefore such income is not eligible for deduction. The Assessing Officer placed reliance on the judgment in I.T.A.No.1568/2005 dated 30.09.2008 in the case

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

80P, DODDAKANNELLI SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU-560035 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, ADV.,) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(5) 14/3, 4TH FLOOR, RASTROTHANA BHAVAN (OPP.) RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

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

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

disallowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and total income of the petitioner 3 of Rs.24,05,000/- came to be taxed levying tax and interest of Rs.30,09,699/-. 3. The said assessment order has been appealed before respondent No.1 along with an interlocutory application for stay of the demand. It is further submitted that after

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). 3. The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax and has sought for keeping of the demand at Annexure-F in abeyance. The copy of the application seeking stay

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