REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

80A(5) and 80AC, in order to claim any deductions under section 80IA(4), the assessee should file its return of income on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA

KOCHIN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,KOCHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(4) &TPS, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kochin Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vii/1832, Lalan Road, Mattancherry Kochi 682002 [Pan: Aabak1735C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2(4) & Tps, Kochi Appellant By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kamath, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit. Dr & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.04.2025

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. In paragraph 6.4.9 he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham

PANANCHERY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), , THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pananchery Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [Pan: Aabap5815A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act of Rs. 21,31,184/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal

PAZHAYANNUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD 2(4), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

disallowance\nclaim u/s. 80P. However, as regards cash deposits, the CIT(A) had\nremitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the\nappeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this\nTribunal in the present appeal.\n7.\nAt the outset we find that there

SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO K280,ERATTAYAR IDUKKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-2012

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P deduction claim once it was raised for the first time in a return filed in response to the 148 notice issued by the Assessing Officer. She quotes section 80A

MOOSPET SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 682 ,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Moospet Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Moospet P.O., Thrissur 680006 [Pan: Aaeam8229N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Shakthan Thampuran Ngar, Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2025

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 4,52,13,522/- invoking provisions of section 80AC(ii) and also made addition of Rs. 79,460/- u/s. 36(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 80A(5) to disallow deduction u/s 80P of the Act. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) has erred

KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - NO: 628,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1, (1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kadukutty Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadukutty P.O., (Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [Pan: Aabak0755A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Yash, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash In The Bank

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of Rs. 1,36,55,587/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

80A(5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

M/S CHAMPAKARA SCB LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD , KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-2019

disallowing its section 80P deduction claimed of Rs. 879,57,663/- in the course of assessment proceedings dated 23.06.2021 as upheld in the first appellate proceedings, the Revenue vehemently argues that this taxpayer has not filed it return within the due 2 Champaraka SCB Ltd. date prescribed u/s. 139(1) and therefore, section 80A

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance claim u/s. 80P. However, as regards cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance claim u/s. 80P. However, as regards cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset