THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, scaled down its claim for deduction u/s 80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, scaled down its claim for deduction u/s 80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter

THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, scaled down its claim for deduction u/s 80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter

MADURAI TUTICORIN EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, scaled down its claim for deduction u/s 80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 7. The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter

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

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

2. President of the society filed an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay, and prayed that delay in filing the appeal is unintentional and inadvertent due to the circumstances beyond their control. It is further stated that he became unaware of the disposal of the first appeal by the learned CIT(A) only in December, 2023 when demand

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order issued u/s 143(1) of the Act is contrary to the facts and also to the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The disallowance of deduction

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

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:

2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of deduction u/s 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to 22,39,393/-, solely on the ground of belated filing of return. That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Section 80P itself imposes no requirement of filing return within the time limit under Section

KOTHAPALLY FARMERS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 415 days in filing the impugned appeals before the Tribunal are also condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society carrying on business of procurement of seed, fertilizers and gives farm credits to the members of the Society. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

KOTHAPALLY FARMERS SERVICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 415 days in filing the impugned appeals before the Tribunal are also condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society carrying on business of procurement of seed, fertilizers and gives farm credits to the members of the Society. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

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

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

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 of the Act made by the CPC, Bangalore and confirmed while dismissing the application under section 154 of the Act, in the guise of prima facie Page 2

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to note that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time and further submits that the quantum of delay is not relevant for what has to be seen is the reasonable and sufficient cause and therefore erred in not condoning the delay in filing