DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considered if the return is filed within the permissible time limits and further proceedings are pending.
What were the facts?
The assessees, co-operative societies, filed their income tax returns after the due date specified under Section 139(1) but within the extended period under Section 139(4). The CPC disallowed their claim for deduction under Section 80P based on this delayed filing, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether a deduction under Section 80P can be denied merely because the return of income was filed belatedly under Section 139(4) and not within the original due date under Section 139(1)?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.192 citing140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · SC
- Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT114 citing135 Taxmann 327 · 1999 · SC
- AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax78 citing138 Taxmann.com 571 · 2022 · HC
- Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT62 citing68 Taxmann.com 298 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
ITA Nos.186, 197, 204 & 203/RJT/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (for all)
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Ambaradi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd… vs The DCIT(CPC), Bangaluru, BengaluruRajkot10 Feb 2023Allowed
Also relies on Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considere...
- Godhavadar Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd… vs The ADIT (CPC), BangaloreRajkot25 Apr 2023Allowed
Also relies on Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P by the CPC was not a prima facie adjustment permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for the assessment year in question. The specific provision for d...
- Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd… vs The ADIT, (CPC), BangaloreRajkot25 Apr 2023Allowed
Also relies on Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction by the CPC was not a permissible prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) as the delay in filing the return did not make the claim 'incorrect...
- Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha… vs Income Tax Officer Ward-1, WardhaNagpur10 Feb 2025Allowed
Also relies on Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from its investments made with cooperative banks is derived from its business activities and should be treated as 'Income From Business', not '...
- Aravali Buildhomes LLP, Jaipur vs AO CPC, JaipurJaipur4 Jun 2025Allowed
Also relies on Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a cited judgment that held that if the assessee is otherwise entitled to the deduction on merits, a belated filing of return due to reasonable cause should not disentitle them. ...
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
