THE TRIPLICANE COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the ITR was condoned by the Competent Authority, and the assessee had submitted the necessary documents, the deduction under Section 80P should be allowed. The AO's denial was therefore set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction of ₹86,66,123/- under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19. The AO disallowed this claim because the assessee did not file its ITR as per Section 139(1). Although the delay in filing was condoned by the Competent Authority, the AO denied the deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P on the ground of delayed ITR filing is justified when the delay has been condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80P,Section 139(1),Section 80AC,Section 119(2)(b),Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Cooperative Credit Society against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 11.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”)
2018-19.
The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO disallowing the claim of deduction of ₹86,66,123/- u/s.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) only on the ground that assessee didn’t file the ITR/RoI as per provisions of Sec.139(1) of the Act read with Section 80AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO dated 25.01.2024, despite the fact that the Competent Authority/Chief- Commissioner of Income Tax-1, (CCIT-1), Chennai, has condoned the delay for filing of ITR u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, [copy of the same has been placed before us] and on perusal of the same reveals that the Competent Authority, CCIT-1, Chennai vide order dated 05.11.2024 has condoned the delay for filing of ITR for the relevant AY 2018-19. Further, we note that the AO has denied the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80P of the Act of ₹86,66,123/- only on the ground that the assessee didn’t file the ITR/RoI as per the provisions of Sec.139(1) of the Act. In this regard, it is noted that the AO has admitted that pursuant to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the assessee had filed necessary reply with documentary evidences to substantiate its claim (80P deduction) and that he has perused the documents provided by the assessee and found it to be acceptable. And the AO has acknowledged that the assessee has filed ITR/RoI albeit belatedly and had filed petition for condoning delay on 11.01.2024 before the Competent Authority/CCIT-1, Chennai u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act. But, because the assessee couldn’t produce the order/approval of the Ld.CCIT, the AO is noted to have denied deduction u/s.80P of the Act. On appeal, the assessee is noted to have filed copy of the approval granted by the Ld.CCIT dated 05.11.2024, condoning the delay in filing of ITR for AY 2018-19, before the Ld.CIT(A), who has acknowledged the filing of same, but denied deduction, which impugned action, we can’t countenance. Since the basis for denial of deduction has been removed, the assessee ought to have granted the deduction u/s.80P of the Act. In the light of the discussion, the assessee’s ITR filed belatedly on 14.05.2022 needs to be accepted, as if filed on time for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Hence, the claim of section 80P deduction needs to be allowed and we direct the AO to allow the same.
Hence we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow section 80P deduction claimed by the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026