VIJAY CREDIT AND SUPPLY CO. OP. SOCIETY,DHOLKA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and had claimed deduction under Section 80P of Rs. 79,59,325/-. 7. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

THE ORCHID HEIGHTS CO.OP HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms Suchitra Kamblethe Orchid Heights Co-Op Income Tax Officer, Vs. Housing Service Society Ward-3(3)(5), Limited, Ahmedabad. Applewood Township, Nr. Shantipura Circle, Ahmedabad-382210.. [Pan :Aagat8437 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M J Ranpura, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals:

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The ground of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2

THE MODASA DHANSURA TALUKA TEACHERS CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ARVALLI vs. THE ACIT, HMT CIRCLE, HIMATNAGAR PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1478/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Modasa Dhansura Taluka The Acit बनाम/ Teachers Co-Op.Credit Hmt Circle, Himatnagar V/S. Society Ltd. Present Jurisdiction - S/43, 2Nd Floor The Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1)(1) Shyam Sunder Complex Ahmedabad – 380 015 Station Road, At & Po Modasa Ta. Modasa Aravalli 383 315 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aabat 2852 M अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

condone the delay and decide the case to be adjudicated on merits. 8.2. The AR submitted that the disallowance was incorrect and that the interest income from S. K. District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2

THE SALESTAX EMPLOYEES CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

condone the delay of 111 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with I.T.A No. 612/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 5 The Sales Tax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society ltd. v. ACIT law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Collector of Land Acquisition, Court in the case of Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji

KHERALU TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMIT,MEHSANA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION -THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Kheralu Taluka Primary Teachers Co. Op. Society Niyamit vs. ITO Asst. Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset, we note that the present

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. The assessee raised multiple grounds before CIT(A). In the first ground, it was contended that the AO had erred in disallowing deduction under section 80P amounting

THE VISNAGAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD (UNDER LIQUIDATION),MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN), GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. The assessee raised multiple grounds before CIT(A). In the first ground, it was contended that the AO had erred in disallowing deduction under section 80P amounting

NADIAD TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAKONI DHIRAN & GRAHAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,NADIAD vs. THE PCIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

80P(2)(d) of the Act. The PCIT issued show cause notice dated 14.03.2022 for Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 6 proposed revision of the Assessment Order under Section 263 of the Act. As the assessee has not filed any response, the PCIT held that the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR, PRAHLAD NAGAR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PORODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under: “ITA No. 1588/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN VEJALPUR vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under: “ITA No. 1588/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

VIKAS CO. OP CREDIT SOC. LTD,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-3, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5.1 On merits, the issue for consideration before us is whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction on interest earned from Co-Operative Banks u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the observations of the Hon’ble Gujarat

THE KHEDBRAHMA TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,HIMATNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which

condone the delay of 9 days and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with

THE DHANERA NAGARIK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Final Hearing.”

condoning the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a credit Co- Operative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and taking deposits from its members. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.02.2018 declaring total income

SHREE YOGESHWAR CO. OP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4 PRESENT WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

condonation of delay along with an affidavit. It is explained that the assessee is a cooperative credit society Shree Yogeshwar Co. Op. Credit Soc. Ltd. Vs.ITO, AY- 2018-19 2 engaged in business of giving loan to its members and that its income was exempt under section 80P

RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.11.2021 pertaining to Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has notified that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 581 days. In order to explain the reasons for the impugned delay, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC order was passed against the assessee

GUJARAT FISHERIES CENTRE CO .OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABDA vs. ITO, WRAD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in Assessing the Total Income at Rs. 1,02,11,170/- as against the originally assessed income of Rs. 1,06,410/- 3. The learned Pr. CIT has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 80P with respect to Interest Income

SHRI MODHESHWARI BACHAT DHIRAN ANE GRAHAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi due to oversight has confirmed the date of filing of appeal as 18.11.2020 instead of actual filing of appeal on 18.01.2020 and confirmed that the appeal was filed after a period of 314 days of delay for which no reason sought by the appellant for condonation of delay which is illegal

VOLARK LEASING IFSC PVT. LTD,GUJARAT vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GUJARAT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act though the same has not been claimed by the assessee in return of income. It is settled law that correct income of the assessee is to be assessed as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of higher income incorrectly declared by the assessee in the return of income. This view