CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

gains of business and this did not constitute the business of the assessee. Secondly, the interest that had been received by the assessee was not received from Cooperative Societies but from scheduled / cooperative banks and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Thereafter, quoting from various cases, to this effect he held that

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

gains of business and this did not constitute the business of the assessee. Secondly, the interest that had been received by the assessee was not received from Cooperative Societies but from scheduled / cooperative banks and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Thereafter, quoting from various cases, to this effect he held that

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

4 of appeal in ITA No.394/Lkw/2019 have been decided\nby the Bench in the matter of Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited vide\norder dated 30.09.2024. In the said order, after considering similar arguments\nadvanced by the ld. AR and the ld. Sr. DR, the Bench held as under:-\n\"13. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

gains of the business”. However, the assessee had earned income from commission and interest on deposits of surplus funds available with it. Thereafter, the ld. AO applying the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283, held that since the two incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

gains of the business”. However, the assessee had earned income from commission and interest on deposits of surplus funds available with it. Thereafter, the ld. AO applying the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283, held that since the two incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

gains of the business”. However, the assessee had earned income from commission and interest on deposits of surplus funds available with it. Thereafter, the ld. AO applying the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283, held that since the two incomes

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

4. Because on the whole facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the commission receipts from the sugar factory in the case did not out of any marketing activity to be qualified for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) and that these receipts towards capital fund and not eligible for deduction

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

4. Because on the whole facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the commission receipts from the sugar factory in the case did not out of any marketing activity to be qualified for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) and that these receipts towards capital fund and not eligible for deduction

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

4 of 15 Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable in facts from the case of the appellant assessee. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the law has used the word "attributable" and not the word "derived" in section 80P so as to include income from sources other than the actual

GONDA COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,GONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Being Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat).

80P of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had remitted the matter back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh, without being bound or influenced by the earlier orders passed by them or by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of such orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case laws

DARYABAD CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED,BARABANKI vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Daryabad Co-Operative Cane V. The Addl/Joint/Dy. Acit Development Union Limited Nfac Daryabad, Ram Sanehi Ghat Delhi Barabanki Tan/Pan:Aaaad4943N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

gains of business and, therefore, was not admissible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, whereas if it was income from other sources, deduction was admissible under section 80P(2)(c) of the Act to the extent of Rupees Fifty Thousand only. The AO accordingly, disallowed an amount of Rs.1,11,462/- under the provisions of section