SHRI GANESH NAGARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 2(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action denying it sec.80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) deduction(s) of Rs.35,93,155/- and Rs.34,57,315/- respectively.

2 ITA.No.352/PUN./2024 3. Mr. Shingte submitted during the course of hearing that the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore’s intimation dated 23.12.2021 has in fact rejected the impugned deduction(s) as upheld in the “NFAC” order. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the department side.

In view of the foregoing factual backdrop, the clinching issue which arises herein is as to whether the assessee’s impugned sec.80P deduction claim(s) could be declined u/sec.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” or not ? The Revenue vehemently argued that the foregoing amended provision has been rightly invoked in the facts of the instant case. Learned DR could hardly dispute that the above amendment in sec.143(1)(a)(v) enabling the impugned disallowance(s) by way of sec.143(1) intimation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 carries prospective effect only whereas the impugned assessment year involved in the instant appeal is 2020-2021. That being the case, I hereby reject the Revenue’s stand supporting the impugned sec.143(1)(a)(v) intimation dated 23.12.2021 rejecting the assessee’s foregoing sec.80P deduction claim(s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.