UOH STAFF COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the A.O. and claimed that interest earned from fixed deposit with the nationalized banks is also eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act because the interest received is forming part of business of the assessee and therefore the same cannot be disallowed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the

disallowed because the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction either under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or Section 80P

SREE KANYAKA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT CREDIT AND MARKETG. SOCIETY LIMITED,HINDUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HINDUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. With this view of the matter, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by disallowing

ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.आआआ.आआ /Ita No.1142/Hyd/2024 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Anantapur District Co- Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Anantapur. Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited, Anantapur. Pan:Aaeaa0133B (Appellant) (Respondent) आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee Dr. D. Harish Chandra Rama, Ca By: आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of 24/02/2025 Hearing: आआआआआ आआ 04/03/2025 आआआआआ/Pronouncement: आआआआ/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantapur District Co-Operative Staff Co-Operative Society Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.09.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Association Of Persons (“Aop”), Not Filed Any Return Of Income (“Roi”) U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'). From The Information

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was disallowed through intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and the rectification

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 Durgamatha House Building Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Construction Co-Operative Hyderabad. Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacad6852C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was disallowed through intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and the rectification

DURGAMATHA HOUSE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 80P(2) was made in the original assessment order under section 143(1) of the Act and not under

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 80P of the Act, Assessing Officer opined that the assessee was not eligible for deduction. Hence, he disallowed the deduction

THE CITIZEN CO-OP-SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.388/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Citizen Cooperative Vs. Dy.Cit Society Limited, Hyderabad Circle 9 (1) Pan:Aaaat3952F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 13/02/2025 Of The Learned Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) - Iv U/S 263 Of The Act Is Erroneous Both In Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) U/S 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Need To Be Quashed.

section 263 of the Act merely, because he does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Principal CIT has held that the Assessing Officer has failed to properly verify the deduction u/s 80P during the assessment proceedings and also observation that the deduction u/s 80P was disallowed

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

Bench: Us:

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted

THE GHATKESAR FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MEDCHAL vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. With this view of the matter, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by disallowing

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest income amounting to Rs 90,31,838/-. learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed

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

Bench: Us:

disallowance of the appellant's claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act, without appreciating that the CPC passed

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P and completed the reassessment by determining the total income at Rs. 1,08,08,087/- under

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

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

80P deduction. Their lordships have duly taken into consideration the hon'ble apex court's foregoing decision (supra). We therefore hold that both the Assessing Officers therein had not committed any error in not disallowing the assessees' section

SRI KODANDARAMASWAMY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-2, NELLORE

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act does not come up for consideration at the stage of 143(1) of the Act and it could

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.

section 80P deduction disallowance. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in very terms. Order pronounced in the Open