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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

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

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. In this case, intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 04.01.2021 was issued to the assessee making adjustments by way of disallowance of assessee’s claim u/s. 80P

U.P.COOPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(3), , LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.260/Lkw/2023 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 U.P. Cooperative Federation V. Income Tax Officer-2(3) Ltd Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Pcf Building, 32, Station Road, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226004. Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aaaau0373P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri D. D. Chopra, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 19 12 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

2 of 21 3. Because Appellant being a cooperative society is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act. The Appellant has been allowed deduction under section 80P both in the preceding years and subsequent years. 4. Because learned CliT(Appeals) while upholding the Assessment order on the ground of disallowance

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

disallowance of Rs. 1,63,83,734/- u/s 80P of I. T. Act made by CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1)(a)ii) of I. T. Act. (2) That though Assessee Society submitted belated Return, but Ld. C.I.T.(A) failed to appreciate that Section

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED RUPAPUR,HARDOI vs. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/NFAC, ACIT, SITAPUR

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

2)(d). Therefore, he computed the said interest at Rs. 39,93,216/- and disallowed the same under section 56 of the Act. Thereafter, he proceeded to examine whether interest income earned by the assessee’s society was eligible for deduction under section 80P

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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

disallowances made by the ld. AO in respect of\nclaim of deduction under section 80P for interest earned by the assessee were upheld\nand the appeals of the assessee were dismissed. The grounds of appeal are as under:-\nITA No.37/Lkw/2022 A.Y. 2017-18\n1. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing\ndeduction u/s 80P

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

80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act only. The AO, therefore, treated the amount of Rs.20,33,851/- as the income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.20,33,851/- as against

ACIT CIRLCE-1, LUCKNOW vs. U P COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

80P(2)(d) of the Act after placing\nreliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Surat\nVankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd [72 Taxmann.com 169 (Guj)].\n6.3 The claims made by appellant and reliance placed on above quoted\ndecisions is found to be justified. Therefore, the addition of Rs.\n4,11,20,788/- made

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)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union

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)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union

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)

2)(i)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union (1973) U.P.T.C. 113 and ITO, Ward-2, ITA Nos.34, 30 & 31/Lkw/2021 Lakhimpur Khiri vs. Cooperative Cane Development Union

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. M/S SEHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD, LAKHIMPUR-KHERI

The appeals is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed by the Assessing Officer was rightly allowed by learned CIT(A) which may be upheld. 5. Learned D. R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly held that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not available to the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. M/S SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD., LAKHIMPUR-KHERI

The appeals is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed by the Assessing Officer was rightly allowed by learned CIT(A) which may be upheld. 5. Learned D. R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly held that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not available to the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD., LAKHIMPUR-KHERI

The appeals is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed by the Assessing Officer was rightly allowed by learned CIT(A) which may be upheld. 5. Learned D. R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly held that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not available to the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. M/S SEHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD, LAKHIMPUR-KHERI

The appeals is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowed by the Assessing Officer was rightly allowed by learned CIT(A) which may be upheld. 5. Learned D. R., on the other hand, invited our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly held that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act is not available to the assessee