M/S MYLACHEL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 435/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 September 2024AY 2011-12Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction. The claim was not made in the original return, which is a mandatory requirement as per Section 80A(5) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80P. However, both lower authorities disallowed this claim because it was not raised in the original return of income. The assessee's counsel did not dispute this factual position.

What were the issues?

Whether a deduction under Section 80P can be allowed if it is not claimed in the original return of income. Whether the disallowance by lower authorities was justified on account of non-compliance with Section 80A(5).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80A(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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

Hearing: 13.08.2024Pronounced: 12.09.2024

Appellant by : Sri.Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2011-2012 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051187605(1) dated 23.03.2023, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim for the sole reason that the same had not been raised in “a return” so as to comply with the rigor of sec.80A(5) of the Act. Learned counsel is fair enough to not disputing this clinching factual . Mylachel SCB Ltd. position. That being the case, we conclude in light of EBR Enterprises v. Union of India (2019) 415 ITR 139 (Bom.) that the impugned claim has rightly been disallowed by the lower authorities. Ordered accordingly.

3.

Delay of 12 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80P

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →