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

Bench: Us:

condoning the delay and in dismissing the appeal in limine in not 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have decided the appeal on merits by holding that the net income alone be treated as income and not the deposits made into the bank account. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered

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

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

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

Bench: Us:

4), 142(1) or 148 and non-est in view of provision of section 80A(5), precondition to claim deduction under section 80P had not been fulfilled and therefore assessee was not entitled to benefit of exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) Therefore, in application of the above decisions of the High court and also the mandated provisions

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

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

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

4. In this connection, learned AR placed on record a copy of the order condoning the delay in filing ITR, under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, wherein it was clearly mentioned that “after carefully considering the submission of the assessee and in view of the CBDT’s Circular No. 13/2013 in F.No. 173/21/2023-ITA-I, dated 26/07/2023 the assessee

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

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

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

4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the denial of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,08,08,087/- 5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the denial of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act amounting

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 application alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application

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 application alongwith affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application