BHAIRABNALA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,KALNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co- operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

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

House Property. 5 Appellant files 1.Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction Appeal before ITAT reiterated. B Bench, Kolkata 2. Additional ground filed for netting of expenses corresponding to the disallowed incomes. 6 16.09.15 ITAT, B Bench, 1.Claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction Kolkata pronounces relating to Interest Income dismissed by its order pronounces its order relying

ITO, WD-35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KOLKATA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 80P(2 )(a )(i) on interest on investment amounting to Rs. 1;18,07,645/- in this assessment 'year also. Since the Tribunal found that this decision of the Tribunal was followed by CIT (A) there is no reason to take a different view. Under these circumstances, we feel that when the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well

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

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P

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)

House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P

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.”

property of Rs.2,20,000/- cannot be held to be eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act as it is not an activity covered under the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Considering the same, Rs.2,20,000/- has to be assessed under the head income from house

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:

House Property instead of under Profits & Gains of Business or Pro is wrong, arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous, excessive and deserves to be reversed. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 745174 incurred for and depreciation of Rs.154729 claimed on value of assets used for holiday homes

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:

House Property instead of under Profits & Gains of Business or Pro is wrong, arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous, excessive and deserves to be reversed. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 745174 incurred for and depreciation of Rs.154729 claimed on value of assets used for holiday homes

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:

House Property instead of under Profits & Gains of Business or Pro is wrong, arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous, excessive and deserves to be reversed. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 745174 incurred for and depreciation of Rs.154729 claimed on value of assets used for holiday homes

THE ELECTRO URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-12, , KOLKATA

In the result, this assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M. Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Electro Urban Co- Principal Commissioner Operative Credit Society Ltd., Of Income Tax, Cesc House, Annex Kolkata-12, Building, 1St Floor, Kolkata. Vs Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001. Pan- Aadat 5699 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca. Respondent By Sh. Radhey Shyam, Cit. Date Of Hearing 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 10.07.2020 Order Per Sh. S.S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2014-15 Arises Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-12, Kolkata In M. No. Pcit-12/Kol/263/2018-19/ In Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”).

Section 80P(2)(i) deduction being not business income. It is crystal clear therefore that the head of assessee’s income derived from its holiday homes i.e. whether it is income from house property

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

BARDHAMAN DISHARI SHRAMIK O JANAALYAN SAMABAY SAMITY LIMITED,BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 80P of the Act due to the wrong status code of Trust in the PAN of the assessee. There were technical defects is the return for filing up the column “K” in schedule- VIA in the return as a result of which the Column-10 in the part B-TI 4 I.T.A. No. 1722/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bardhaman

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

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

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

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

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

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