COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

capital, still the interest income therefrom would qualify for exemption under Section 80P of the IT Act. In Mehsana District Central Co-op. Bank the Supreme Court reiterated the test observing that to be able to answer the question whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act can be allowed, it is necessary to ascertain whether

Alugubelli Nagabhushana Rao vs. The Income Tax Officer,

The Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL

gains of business attributable to any of other activities referred to sub-section (2) of Section 80P shall be deducted in computing the total income of the assessee. In other words, the said income is not taxable. It is a benefit given to the Co- operative society. Section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 28Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Somak Basu, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Advocate Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Somak Basu, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Assessee & Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 19.08.2011 On Four Substantial Questions Of Law. Learned Counsel For The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Does Not Want To Press The Substantial

2) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in upholding the deduction of Rs.41,03,833/- from the unit dividend income as interest expenditure incurred in relation thereto and consequent reduction of relief under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Rs.24,62,300/- was arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? 4) Whether the learned Tribunal below

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

2) Act, 2009, with effect from 1st April 2010 and accordingly applicable in respect of Assessment Year 2010-2011 and subsequent Assessment Years, clause (viii) to Section 36 (1) was amended to read as under:- “36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income