DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 967 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons in the application are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)(b) of the Act shall be passed without providing the applicant an\nopportunity of being heard.”\n1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby\ncondoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n2. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereafter “the Act”), dated 03.05.2023, passed

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society filed income tax return for the Assessment year 2017-18 on20/10/2017 showing total income Nil. 3. The Computation of Total Income as per income tax return submitted are as follows : 3.1. Computation of Income from Business or Profession are as follows : Particulars Details

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society filed income tax return for the Assessment year 2017-18 on20/10/2017 showing total income Nil. 3. The Computation of Total Income as per income tax return submitted are as follows : 3.1. Computation of Income from Business or Profession are as follows : Particulars Details

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to all banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.[Para 37] ■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular carves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and provides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn profit, then

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of deduction under section 80P has itself been deleted in appeal. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is directed to delete the aggregate penalty of Rs. 1,01,61,614/- levied under section 270A, on these accounts. These grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. In Ground No. (4), the appellant has sought leave to add, substitute, modify, delete

PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANDAVESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as\nwithdrawn

disallowed deductions claimed under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's order.", "held": "The assessee had filed an application under section 119(2)(b

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act is the critical part of the statute which would determine whether any assessee claiming relief u/s 80P of the Act could be denied the benefit of the same in case the return was not filed within the time prescribed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

B Bench, 1.Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction Kolkata pronounces relating to Interest Income dismissed by its order pronounces its order relying on the Totgars case. 2.Appeal for netting of expenses corresponding to the disallowed incomes accepted. Matter restored to Ld. AO. 7 30.12.2016 Ld. ACIT passes 1. Rs 8.26.200 considered as expense order corresponding to Interest income

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

VISA BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED. ,SANTINIKETAN vs. ITO, WARD-3($), SURI, BIRBHUM, SURI WEST-BENGAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance made by Ld. AO is the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra), he invited the attention of the Bench to the issue which was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra). The same is extracted

JANAMANGAL SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HALDIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 55/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Janamangal Samabay Krishi Income Tax Officer, Ward – 27(1), Unnayan Samity Limited Vs Haldia Dharmadasbar, Contai Purba Medinipur - 721401 [Pan : Aabaj2517P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Raman Garg, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Deduction U/S 80P For Whole Of The Profit Of Rs. 65,16,054/ For Business Of Banking/Providing Credit Facility Was Not Allowed As Per Order U/S 250 By The Ld. Cit Appeal Nfac, Of Appellant Assessee Janamangal Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited A Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act Engage In The Business Of Supporting Agricultural Development. As Per Order U/S 250 A Proportion Of This Profit Was Allowed U/S 80P Of Rs. 22,65,866/ By Disallowing The Balance Amount Of Rs. 42,50,188/ Without Allowing The Deduction U/S Sop. The Basis Of Proportion For Allowance & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Clear To The Assessee. According To The Assessee Cost & Profit Allocation Should Be Based On Allocation Of Fund To Deposit Investment & Loan Disbursement. Therefore Assessee Is Completely Disagreed With The Opinion & Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal U/S 250 & Preferred For Appeal To Tribunal.”

disallowing the excess claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act at Rs. 46,32,263/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, remand report was called for. Copy of the same is available at page 19 to 25 of the impugned order and the net earning calculated

UNITED BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.546 To 548/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 United Bank Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd……Appellant 14/4, Sovaram Bysak Street, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaaau1388A] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), Kolkata….…….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 28.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, Hence These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.546/Kol/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita 546/Kol/2022 – The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 81 & 82 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 and to allow benefit u/s 80P on that interest income and (b) to ascertain the interest paid to the members for the purpose of earning the interest on the funds deposited in the commercial bank and to allow deduction of such interest from the interest income earned