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)

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 in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

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)

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 in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

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)

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 in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised

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

delay in filing this appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned

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

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

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:

2,39,393/-. As the return of income was not filed as per section 139(1) of the I.T. Act in view of specific provisions of section 80AC of the I.T. Act (which are available in the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2018, which requires that claim u/s 80P can be allowed only if return of income is filed as 8 ITA.No.1522/Hyd

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

condonation of the delay involved in filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act which had formed the very genesis for declining its claim for deduction u/s 80P of the Act, and the same is pending disposal as on date. 8. Per contra, Sri Ashuthosh Pradhan, the learned senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”), submitted that

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

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

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PEDDA HARIVANAM vs. ITO WARD-1, ADONI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.9.2021 has already excluded all the prescribed limitations between 15.3.2020 to 2.10.2021. We thus condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,PAMULAPADU vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.9.2021 has already excluded all the prescribed limitations between 15.3.2020 to 2.10.2021. We thus condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones

ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE CO- OP SOCEITY,YERRAGUNTLA vs. ITO WARD-2, NANDYAL

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.9.2021 has already excluded all the prescribed limitations between 15.3.2020 to 2.10.2021. We thus condone the three impugned delay(s) therefore. 3. We next advert the sole substantive issue between the parties, qua correctness of the Pr.CIT’s identical revision direction treating the corresponding regular assessments, dated 28.6.2017, 29.6.2017 and 27.6.2017; respectively as erroneous ones

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

c) of para 6, the learned CIT-DR doubted carrying of huge cash from Hyderabad to work spot. The persons have explained as to how they carried the money after withdrawal from bank at Hyderabad to the work spot. It is possible that a person has withdrawn the money and carried the money to the work spot. The doubt

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

c) of para 6, the learned CIT-DR doubted carrying of huge cash from Hyderabad to work spot. The persons have explained as to how they carried the money after withdrawal from bank at Hyderabad to the work spot. It is possible that a person has withdrawn the money and carried the money to the work spot. The doubt

DY. COMMSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3)., HYDERABAD vs. SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

c) of para 6, the learned CIT-DR doubted carrying of huge cash from Hyderabad to work spot. The persons have explained as to how they carried the money after withdrawal from bank at Hyderabad to the work spot. It is possible that a person has withdrawn the money and carried the money to the work spot. The doubt