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

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

5 of section 80A would operate by itself. In cases where returns have been filed, the question of exemptions or deductions referable to section 80P would definitely have to be considered and granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well

TAVINJAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, WAYANAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthavinjal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Thalapuzha P.O. Ward - 1(4), Kalpetyta Vs Wayanad 670664 Wayanad 673122 [Pan: Aadat2035N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80A(5) of the Act indeed applies in this case and the same ought to have been claimed only in a return filed within the “due” date u/s. Thavinjal Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 139(1) of the Act . It’s case draws strong support from both the lower authorities’ action disallowing

M/S. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1509, The Income Tax Mararikulam North Officer, P.O., Ward – 2, Cherthala, Alappuzha. Alappuzha – 688 549. Vs. Kerala. Pan: Aacam9305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amaljith P J, Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 13/08/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal (See Note Below) Intimation Order U/S. 1. 143(1) Is Against The Law Rs.7,36,849/- & Facts Of The Case

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80P is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Ld.AR also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 384 ITR 490 has held that even if return of income was filed before the appellate authority

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

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

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

EDAKKAD URBAN SAHAKARANA SANGAM,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, KANNUR

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

disallowed the entire deduction claimed, and the CIT(A) confirmed this action.", "held": "The Tribunal held that for a deduction under Section 80P to be allowable, a claim must be made in a valid return of income filed within the prescribed due dates, as per Section 80A(5

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

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

PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

disallowances. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker), confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

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

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 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