COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION,TULSIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , GONDA

ITA 493/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 June 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, following its own precedent in similar cases for earlier assessment years. The assessee was to be given a meaningful opportunity to represent its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed deduction under Section 80P on its total income. The Assessing Officer made additions, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-representation. The assessee is now appealing to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts and whether the deduction under Section 80P was rightly denied by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2022-23. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the CIT (Appeal) NFAC Delhi has committed manifest error of law by rejecting the first appeal of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →