DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

disallowance were carried out, those may be rectified. Hence, the CBDT itself accepted the position that even returns filed u/s.139 is to be accepted. It means that it has enlarged its scope of section 139 of the Act, which includes provisions of section 139(4) also. Here provision of section 139(4) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 lays down that any person

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

139; or (vi)..... 9 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. ********* 5.1 The assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P of the Act falls under provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act. It is a fact that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, enabling disallowance of deduction claimed Chapter VIA of the Act, was made

THE GASPER EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.871/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) The Gasper Education Society Vs Ito Ward-7 (1), Kolkata 40A, Ajc Bose Road, Nonapukur Tram Depot, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aaabt 0159 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1074097940(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Wherein The Assessing Officer Has Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Sections 11 & 12 Of The Act On The Ground That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was U/S.139(4) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer. Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Circular Issued By The Cbdt In F.No.173/193/2019-Ita-

5 e. These amendments will take effect from 1stApril, 2023 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years." 10. It is apparent from the above clarification that this amendment was introduced to exclude the category of updated returns of income u/s 139(8) of the Act. The requirement of Section

ITO(EXEMPT),WARD-1(2). , KOLKATA vs. DEBENDRA AND ROHINI MEMORIAL TRUST, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.241/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ito (Exemption), Ward-1(2), Kolkata...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Vs. Debendra & Rohini Memorial Trust............….……….…………….. Respondent Kalyanpur Barida, Egra Medinipur, Purba-721429, W.B-721429. [Pan: Aactd0883C] Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.01.2023 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’).

disallowance of deduction u/s 11 of the Act for not filing the return of income within time as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act as required u/s 12A(1)(ba) r.w.s 139(4A) of the Act. 4. At the outset the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowance made by the Ld. AO in disposing the appeal of the\nassessee.\"\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and\nhad filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 showing total income of\n19,89,163/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Computer\nAssisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). Notices

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi)\nsince assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed\nunder section 139 and even under section 148 On reading sections 80A(5

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

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5

KISHOREPUR PASCHIMANCHAL S K U S LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Kishorepur Paschimanchal Skus Limited Income Tax Officer, Bandipur, Malay Bandipur Ward-23(1), Hooghly Vs B.O. Bandipur Hooghly - 712617 [Pan : Aacak9370Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 13/10/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 6,32,082/- By A.O. (Cpc) On The Ground Of Belated Filing Of Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Delay In Filing Of Return Of Income Was Occasioned Due To Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Denial Of Benefit U/S 80P On Account Of Delay In Filing Return Of Income Was Beyond The Jurisdiction Of The A.O. (Cpc) While Exercising Power Of Processing Return Of Income U/S 143(1).” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 6,32,082/- Claimed By

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible

JAGANNATH KARBARH DESHAPRAN SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 667/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagannath Karbarh Deshapran Skus Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Jagannath Karbarh Ward-27(4), Haldia Vs Pirijkhanbarh Egra Purba Medinipur -721422 [Pan : Aacaj0089M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. (Cpc) In Denying Deduction U/S Section 80P To The Tune Of Rs. 15,31,190/- For Belated Filing Of The Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Reason For Belated Filing Of Return Of Income Was Beyond The Control Of The Society. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Issue Was Debatable & The Adjustment U/S 143(1) Was Not Permissible In Law.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Received An Intimation From Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act Making An Adjustment In Returned Income By Which Cpc Did Not Grant Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act At Rs. 15,31,190/- Claimed

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible

KHANDRA COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BARDHAMAN vs. THE AO, CPC BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5

RATULIA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITI LTD.,EAST MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5

M/S. DIGNAGAR SAMABAI KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5 AY: 2018-19 M/s. Dignagar Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

TAJPUR S.K.U.S LTD.,MAHISHADAL, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. LD. DCIT , PRESTIGE ALPHA NO.48/1, 48/2 BERATENAAGRAHARA BEGUR, HOSUR ROAD

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

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148. On reading sections 80A(5

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the same. The assessee submitted that it has been carrying on the business of insurance other than life insurance and accordingly its income tax assessments were required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act. According to the aforesaid provisions, the profits

SATREENA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written submission, which reads as under:- The assessee is a Private Limited Company and had earned all its income from Tanzania which was received by the assessee after payment of withholding tax of INR 21,24,975/-. Subsequently tax returns were filed in India with tax liability

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, though claimed by the assessee company in the return of income. Further, the liability has been raised out of fine or penalty imposed by the forest department, and the provision out of the liability is also not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In the present case, the assessee

SANTIPUR THANA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

5 I.T.A. Nos.: 134 & 135/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Santipur Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

JATRAPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,NADIA vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

5 I.T.A. Nos.: 134 & 135/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Santipur Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd. section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

MECLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5