NO 368 KOLAKALURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee society is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20) No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-1, Credit Society Limited, Tenali. Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information disseminated in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy (RMS), which revealed that the assessee society had during the subject year made cash deposits/withdrawals aggregating

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

2)(d). The Assessing Officer has correctly assessed the said income under the head "Income from Other Sources" as per Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving the claim of deduction under either of the invoked provisions. Accordingly, the disallowance

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

disallowed the deduction of Rs.97,88,434/- which was claimed by the Assessee u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Against the said additions, the Assessee preferred the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who sustained the aforesaid additions, against which the Assessee preferred the instant appeal and raised two issues. (M/s. The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

disallowed the deduction of Rs.97,88,434/- which was claimed by the Assessee u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Against the said additions, the Assessee preferred the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who sustained the aforesaid additions, against which the Assessee preferred the instant appeal and raised two issues. (M/s. The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided

NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) shall not be disallowed. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed its return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM vs. THE YENDAGANDHI LARGE SIZE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, YEDAGANDI

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1 V. The Yendagandhi Large Size Cooperative Society Limited Opp. Ganesh Canteen 4-16, Kk Road, Yendagandhi J.P. Road, Bhimavaram – 534202 West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

2)(d) of the Act concluded that, this section only envisages interest from cooperative society and not a cooperative bank and completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.2,00,04,431/- by disallowing

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 40(ba) of the Act and disallowed the salary paid to Mr. Ch. Vijay Prakash for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 as under: 2008-09 - ` 2

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 40(ba) of the Act and disallowed the salary paid to Mr. Ch. Vijay Prakash for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 as under: 2008-09 - ` 2

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

section 40(ba) of the Act and disallowed the salary paid to Mr. Ch. Vijay Prakash for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 as under: 2008-09 - ` 2

MANNE SUBBA RAO,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.158/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Manne Subba Rao Acit, Circle-2(1) D.No.78-15-21/5,T-1, Rajamahendravaram Block-1, Rama Residency Syamala Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Ayyps 3433R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

disallowing the loss. For the sake of clarity, we extract the relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) available in page No.4 para 5.3 to 5.5. which reads as under : “5.3. It is clear from the above that the core issue in this appeal is whether Section 45(2

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble**

2)(a)(i).* - *5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, or amend any grounds of appeal at thetime of hearing."* - **8.** The only issue emanating from the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section

BHEEMUNIPATNAM MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 175, 176 & 177/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided V. Dcit / Acit, Circle – 3(1) Cooperative Building Society Limited Income Tax Office H.No. 10-36-284 Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Bheemunipatnam – 531163 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaaat5114H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed as the provisions of section 80P clearly stated that it does not apply to a cooperative bank. Assessee submitted its reply through e-proceedings. Ld. AO on considering the provisions of section 80P(2

BHEEMUNIPETAM MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 175, 176 & 177/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided V. Dcit / Acit, Circle – 3(1) Cooperative Building Society Limited Income Tax Office H.No. 10-36-284 Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Bheemunipatnam – 531163 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaaat5114H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed as the provisions of section 80P clearly stated that it does not apply to a cooperative bank. Assessee submitted its reply through e-proceedings. Ld. AO on considering the provisions of section 80P(2

BHEEMUNIPATNAM MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 175, 176 & 177/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Bheemunipatnam Mutually Aided V. Dcit / Acit, Circle – 3(1) Cooperative Building Society Limited Income Tax Office H.No. 10-36-284 Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Bheemunipatnam – 531163 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaaat5114H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed as the provisions of section 80P clearly stated that it does not apply to a cooperative bank. Assessee submitted its reply through e-proceedings. Ld. AO on considering the provisions of section 80P(2

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

section 154 of the Act dated 15.10.2024 by disallowing the capital receipts amounting to Rs.7,09,44,112/- stating that there is a mistake apparent from the record while passing the giving effect order to the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.06.2024. Page No. 2

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

2. The Ld. CIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

2. The Ld. CIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

2. The Ld. CIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act in as much as the order of the Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. CIT is not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider for disallowance