THE INDUR INTIDEEPAM PRODUCERS MA CO-OP SOCIETIES FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 2. The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 581 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the bench to condone the delay. In this connection, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of the said delay wherein, it was, inter

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHENNARAOPET,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

Bench: Us:

80P of the Act of Rs.55,94,190/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee society was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act. The A.O. framed the assessment, vide his order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24.09.2022, wherein he, after disallowing the assessee society's claim for deduction of interest

STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a co- operative society, formed by the employees of the SBI Bank Staff. It filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 26/09/2018 declaring total income as NIL. Return of income

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs. VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ought to have decided the appeal on merits without prejudice to the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) not having adjudicated on merits of the matter the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly set-aside the appeal to the file

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY WANKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, MANCHIRIAL

Bench: Us:

delay occurred due to reasonable cause and the claim is otherwise legally allowable. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was made on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of section 80AC read with section 80P and judicial precedents, resulting in undue hardship to the Appellant. 3 Primary Agriculture Cooperative

CHILLAKURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO V 529,PELLAKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1522/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Chillakuru Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Ward-1, Gudur. Cooperative Society Vs. Pin – 524 101. Limited No.529, State Of Andhra Pellakur. Pradesh. Pin – 524 129. Tirupati. Pan Aabac1880A (Appellant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

Section 148 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a return filed u/s 148 cannot be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80P. That the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 is deemed to be a return u/s 139(4), and therefore all lawful claims including deduction u/s 80P are maintainable therein. Reliance

THE ADARSHA BHARATHI FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANEKAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KURNOOL

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay in filing the return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 is hereby condoned”. 5. Thus, learned AR submitted that disallowance under section 80P

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED CHINNA GOLKONDA,SHAMSHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

80P of the I.T. Act and, therefore, no return of income was filed as the assessee was not filing any returns earlier. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant had no assessments earlier and, therefore, ought to have considered the facts of the case and condoned the delay

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING,,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, MAHABUBNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

section 80P of IT Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal”. 5. There is a delay of 156 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.251/Hyd/2022 for which the assessee has filed condonation

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING ,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -2, MAHABUBNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

section 80P of IT Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal”. 5. There is a delay of 156 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.251/Hyd/2022 for which the assessee has filed condonation

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP SOCIETY ,RAMADURGAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADONI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively, for the A.Y.s. 2016-17 and 2018-19. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.661/Hyd/2022 is barred by limitation by 3 days. It has moved a condonation petition explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard

YADIKI PACS,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,08,08,087/- for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act without providing the appellant an opportunity of being heard against the same which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,GOUSE NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-1, SURYAPET

Appeal is allowed in very terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited, Ward – 1, Gousenagar, Suryapet. Nalgonda. Pan : Aacap0382R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri E.S. Ranganath. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2016-17 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 24.02.2020 In Case No.10333/2018-19/A3/Cit(A)-3 Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires At The Outset That The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Referred Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dt.24.02.2020 Suffers From 580 Days Delay In Filing. There Is Hardly Any Dispute That All The Intervening Period From The Said Date Has Witnessed Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Therefore, The Same Stands Condoned. The Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjournment On Merits.

delay in filing. There is hardly any dispute that all the intervening period from the said date has witnessed outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the same stands condoned. The case is now taken up for adjournment on merits. 3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant lis challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities

SYNDICATE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MUTUALLY AIDED COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURNOOL

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 3 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a society involved in the business of banking / providing credit facility to its members and others. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny for CASS