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:

disallowance of Rs.10,31,752/- is upheld, and the 9 G MEDAPADU PACS vs. ITO appeal is dismissed. The addition made by the Assessing Officer stands confirmed. 5.3.8 The appellant has claimed commission income amounting to Rs.1,82,15,130/- received from The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., which has been treated by the Assessing Officer as business

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)

section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. We therefore by respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court are of the view that interest income should be allowed as deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and thereby the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has rightly held by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO and hence we find

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

2,11,200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

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

2,11,200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

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

2,11,200/- 2009-10 - ` 3,06,000/- 2010-11 - ` 3,66,000/- 2011-12 - ` 3,96,000/- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. disallowed the salary paid to the Joint Secretary by applying section

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

THE VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

section 72AB of the Act. In the present case, the amalgamating company i.e. Bobbili Co-operative bank not filed return of income as required u/s 72AB of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue and disallowed the claim of the assessee.” 14. Insofar

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**

disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, since the ground and facts in this case are identical, the decision taken in assessee's case for the A.Y.2015-16 as in preceding paras shall *mutatis mutandis*, applicable to ITA No.433/VIZ/2025. Accordingly Ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - **18.** With respect to Ground No.1

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)

disallowance of interest under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act consideringthe interest received from a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under the District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee Page

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)

disallowance of interest under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act consideringthe interest received from a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under the District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee Page

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)

disallowance of interest under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act consideringthe interest received from a cooperative bank is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under the District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee Page

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)

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 I.T.A.No.358/VIZ/2024 Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

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

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 VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, 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 ADDL. CIT.,, 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