Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), ... on 21 June, 2024
cites
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sai University Act, 2018
Arihant Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(5),, Pune on 3 July, 2019
"4.We have heard both the sides and perused the
relevant material on record. It is observed that the
ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P
by following the order passed by the Tribunal in the
case of Shivneri Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd.
(supra).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S H.P. State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 19 April, 2017
6. Ld.DR has not brought to our notice any direct decision of the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, respectfully applying
the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Andra
Pradesh and Telangana (supra) and ITAT Pune (supra) to the facts of
the present case, we are of the considered view that the Interest
earned by the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made by AO of
the Interest Income."
M/S The Totgars Co-Operative Sale ... vs The Income Tax Officer on 30 September, 2008
34. The case before the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co-operative
Sale Society Ltd.'s case (supra) was in respect of a co operative
credit society, which was also marketing the agricultural produce
of its members. As seen from the facts disclosed in the decision of
the Karnataka High Court in Totgars, from out of which the
decision of the Supreme Court arose, the assessee was carrying on
the business of marketing agricultural produce of the members of
the society. It is also found from paragraph-3 of the decision of the
Karnataka High Court in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.'s
case (supra) that the business activity other than marketing of the
agricultural produce actually resulted in net loss to the society.
Therefore, it appears that the assessee in Totgars was carrying on
some of the activities listed in clause (a) along with other
activities. This is perhaps the reason that the assessee did not pay
to its members the proceeds of the sale of their produce, but
invested the same in banks. As a consequence, the investments
were shown as liabilities, as they represented the money belonging
to the members. The income derived from the investments made by
retaining the monies belonging to the members cannot certainly be
termed as profits and gains of business. This is why Totgar's struck
a different note.
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Nagari ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (3),, ... on 7 October, 2019
4. The issue before us is identical to the issue decided by
ITAT Pune Bench in Sumitra Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat
Sanstha Maryadit Mahaveer Path(supra) in ITA
8
ITA No.196/PUN/2024
Shri Ganesh Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited [A]
No.2476/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2008-09(supra) i.e. interest income
earned on fixed deposits.
M/S Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit ... vs Assessee on 19 February, 2014
There being no direct judgment from the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court on the point, the Tribunal
in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat
Sanstha Maryadit (supra) preferred to go with the
view taken in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur
Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd.
(supra).
Mantola Co-Operative Thrift And Credit ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 21 on 17 July, 2017
allowing the deduction u/s. 80P on interest
income and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Mantola Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. Vs.
CIT (2014) 110 DTR 89 (Delhi) not allowing
deduction u/s.80P on interest income, earned from
banks under similar circumstances. Both the
Hon'ble High Courts have taken into consideration
the ratio laid down in the case of Totgar's
Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. 322 ITR 283 (SC).