Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by : --- None--- Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2019-2020 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051491578(1) dated 28.03.2023, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte qua the assessee.
We note at the outset that the first and foremost clinching issue herein is regarding correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s sec.36(1)(va) and section 80P deduction(s) in section 143(1)(a)(v) “processing” dated 29.09.2020.
. Kottarakara Taluk Govt Servant Co-op So Ltd.
Suffice to say, case law(s) Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) and [2024] 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bom.) Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT quoted at the Revenue’s behest have already settle the issue against the assessee that such dues have to be credited within the “due” date as per the corresponding statute than that of sec.139(1) return date and a disallowance to this effect could be indeed made in sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” respectively. We thus uphold the impugned sec.36(1)(va) disallowance in very terms.