DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned and the matter is taken up for adjudication. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued that Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act is the critical part of the statute which would determine whether any assessee claiming relief u/s 80P of the Act could be denied the benefit of the same

PANDAVESWAR COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “a) For that the intimation passed under section 143(1) as well as rectification order u/s 154 was issued in violation of provisions 143(1)(a)(v) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the time being

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23-Reg Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'Act') provides for deduction

COAL EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

c) Thereafter, we contacted our regular counsel, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal of 1, Gibson Lane, Kolkata 700069 for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and handed over him all the relevant documents. His office prepared the appeal and filed it on 12.02.2025 in the office of the Tribunal. d) Thus, there is a reasonable cause for not filing appeal

THE W.B. STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 32, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2006-07

delayed by 295 days and a condonation petition has been filed. In the said application the assessee has submitted as under: 2 The W.B. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd., “In the Form No. 36 relating to the aforesaid Appeal filed by the WBSCARDB Ltd., date of order of the CIT was erroneously mentioned as January

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 1.3 Since the issues are common, all the eight appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 466/KOL/2018: “1) That on the facts and circumstances

NAKASHIPARA THANA CO-OPERATIVE AGRIL MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Sri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 504/कोल/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Nakashipara Thana Co-Operative Agril Marketing (अपीलाथ")/Appellant Society Limited………………….…………………. [Pan: Aaban 3131 H] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru..........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances By: कोई नह"ं/None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, Cit, D/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of The Hearing : August 22Nd, 2022 आदेश उ"ोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 8Th , 2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2019-20 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated

80P of the Act was required to file the return before the due date as specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. 10. Now, on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the assessee has stated to have faced genuine hardship, which prevented it to file the return of income before the due date. Relevant

PANISHEOLA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-2020 Panisheola Samabay Krishi Deputy Commissioner Of Unnayan Samity Limited, Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Bhagabatipur, Panisheola, Vs Kolkata, Haripal, Hooghly - 712405 Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (Pan: Aaaap8740R) Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

C) of Chapter VIA which includes section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval

SAHEBGANJ NO.1 ANCHALIK SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay and decide this appeal on merit. 3. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal, which contains pleadings on general points also, namely that assessee may be given liberty to modify the grounds etc. In brief the sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in exercising the powers under section

CHUNAKHALI SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD vs. I.T.O., WARD - 56(3),, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

C) ITA No.: 943/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Chunakhali Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. of Chapter VIA which includes section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 That the action of the AO in disallowance in intimation u/s. 143(1) of claim u/s. 80P which is a debatable issue and requires scrutinisation and verification is unlawful and unjustified. 3. That the disallowance of claim u/s. 80P in pursuance to deduction under Chapter VIA in intimation under section 143(1) even after allowing in scrutiny assessment proceeding

PAIRAGACHA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PAIRAGACHA vs. ITO, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 That the action of the AO in disallowance in intimation u/s. 143(1) of claim u/s. 80P which is a debatable issue and requires scrutinisation and verification is unlawful and unjustified. 3. That the disallowance of claim u/s. 80P in pursuance to deduction under Chapter VIA in intimation under section 143(1) even after allowing in scrutiny assessment proceeding

ACIT, CIR.-29,, KOLKATA vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CR. SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.A. No. 268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Steel Authority Of India Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Pan: Aadas 9699 B Appellant Respondent Date Of Hearing 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 For The Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mrs. Puja Somani, Ca For The Revenue Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

delay of 39 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society and registered under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities and granting of loan to its members and filed

SIMLON SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED ,VILL - SIMLON , KALNA-I vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGALURU, C P C BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.568/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020

C) of Chapter VIA which includes section 80P of the Act also if the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have been against the assessee subject to the approval

M/S GARIAHAT MARKET BYABASAYEE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a cooperative credit Society registered under Cooperative Societies Act. The appellant filed its income tax return declaring total income at ‘NIL’ after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act amounting

PURULIA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,PURULIA vs. ACIT, CIR. 3, PURULIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

delay has already been explained and condoned. 3. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged re-opening of assessment by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts as emerging out from the assessment order would reveal that the assesese has filed its return of income on 02.07.2007 in compliance

BISHARPARA KODALIA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,DUMDUM vs. ITO, WARD-49(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Income Tax Officer, Ward- Credit Society Ltd. 49(2), Kolkata Vs. Nabajiban, Bisharpara, Dum Dum, West Bengal-700158. (Pan: Aaaab9104B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

C) of Chapter VIA which includes section 80P of the Act also if 4 Bisharpara Kodalia coop. Credit Society ltd., AY 2018-19 the return of income are not filed before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Had it been a case of scrutiny proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the situation certainly would have