← All Phrases

“Section 80(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 80Section 80(2)43 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 80(2) is CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd. (80 Taxmann.com 221), cited in 444 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 80(2)

CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.
80 Taxmann.com 221 · 2017 · High Court
444
citing judgments

Section 14A cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The Explanation to Section 14A is prospective in nature.

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.
376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

CIT v. Paul Brothers
216 ITR 548 · 1995 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 286 · 2022 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies on freebies provided to medical practitioners is not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, as such gifting is prohibited by the Medical Council Regulations, 2002. The court also held that what is directly prohibited by law cannot be indirectly evaded through contrivance.

CIT v. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 249 · 2009 · High Court
140
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the return of income under section 80-IA(7) and similar provisions is directory, not mandatory. Such a report suffices if filed at any time before the assessment is framed.

CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
243 ITR 2 · 2000 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

Income earned from deposits or investments directly and inextricably linked to the acquisition of assets or the setting up of a business project during its construction period is incidental to the asset acquisition, reducing the project cost, or constitutes business receipts eligible for relevant deductions, rather than 'income from other sources'.

Orissa State Warehousing Corpn v. CIT
237 ITR 589 · 1999 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments

A fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly based on its plain language, without substituting judicial impressions for legislative intent. Exemptions and exclusions within such statutes must also be construed strictly and cannot be extended through interpretation.

Judgments citing Section 80(2)

The Navyug Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

ITA 14/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Sthe Navyug Co-Operative Vs. Dcit-32(1), Housing Society Ltd., Room.No.702, 7Th Flr, Jaihind Club Bldg, Jvpd Kautilya Bhavan, Scheme, 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla N.S. Road,Vile Parle (W), Complex, Mumbai-400049. Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0325L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Shalin.S. Divatia.Ar Respondent By : Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit (A) Passed U/Sec 154 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: The Navyug Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai. 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee U/S 154 Seeking Rectification Of The Disallowance The Deduction U/S 80P(2) & 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.60,93,180/- U/S 143 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Shalin.S. Divatia.ARFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant.Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

judicial decisions were the co-operative society receives/earns interest on deposits with the co-operative bank is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly,we fallow the judicial precedence, and set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

Tribunal decisions were the co-operative society receives/earns interest on deposits with the co- operative bank is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80(2)(d) of the Act. We find that the Pr.CIT has not considered the facts that the A.O has called for the information