DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P (2) (d) and held that the entire interest income of Rs. 2,59,49,002/-, was taxable as Income from Other Sources under section 56, as the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it has incurred any expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn such interest income.” 3.3. During

BIBHISANPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA/ WBG-W-176(3), HALDIA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P of the I.T. Act. Thus, the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.32,79,394/- is disallowed and added to the Total Income treating the same as "other income" u/s. 56 of the 1

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed on the ground that you have earned interest income amounting to Rs: 39.44,212/- on deposits/investments made in financial limitation other than co- operative society/Bank and interest income is not attributable either to the activity mentioned in section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the I.T. Act 1961 or section 80P

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "119", "80P", "80AC", "139", "143(1)", "143(1)(a)", "143(1)(a)(v)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "142(1)", "148", "80-IA", "80-1AB", "80-IB", "80-IC", "80-ID", "80-IE", "10AA", "80A" ], "issues": "Whether the AO-CPC could disallow

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

80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

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

80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

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]

80P of the Act shall be allowed to an assessee unless he furnishes a return of his income on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act provides that disallowance

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) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KOLKATA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.240/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito, Ward-35(3), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Kolkata Reserve Bank Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. 13, N.S. Road, Rbi Building (Annexe), Kol- 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabak6244L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. A. K. Nayak, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 10, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2017 Passed In Case No.227/Cit(A)-10/Wd.-35(3)/14-15/16-17/Kol Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grounds Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse The Cit(A) Action Holding The Assessee Eligible For Section 80P(2)(D) Deduction Of Rs.6,97,20,658/- Disallowed In The Assessment Framed On 08.12.2016. Case File Suggests That The Assessee Had Derived The Impugned Interest Income From Parking Of Its Surplus Funds In Fixed Deposits With The Union Bank Of India & Central Bank Of India Fetching Interest Of Rs.6,48,17,859/- & 49,02,799/-; Respectively. The Assessing Officer Quoted Hon’Ble Apex Court’S Decision In Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Ito (2010) In 188 Taxman 282 (Sc)

1) of section 80P, that only an income referred to in subsection (2) was deductible, was not taken into account. The sub- section (2) provides for only the income attributable to the business of advancing credit facilities to its members. Income arising from any other source including investment of capital “if not immediately required to be lent to the member

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) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1

ACIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1014-15

1) of section 80P, that only an income referred to in sub- section (2) was deductible, was not taken into account. The sub-section (2) provides for only the income attributable to the business of advancing credit facilities to its members. Income arising from any other source including investment of capital “if not immediately required to be lent

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) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

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) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1,00,18,578/- under section 270A at the rate of 200 percent of tax payable on under-reporting in consequence of misreported income is also not sustained, as the related disallowance of deduction under section 80P

THE W.B STATE CO-OP AGRI AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-54,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act or 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and Ground No. 1.2 relating to disallowance of deduction for Rs. 11,57,981 is also rejected and the addition is confirmed. Thus Ground Nos. 1

THE JANAKALYAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 11(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

disallowed assessee’s dividend payable of ₹5592/- in assessment order dated 12.03.2015. The CIT(A)’s order in para-4 has accepted assessee’s grievance qua the same subject to verification. I now come to issue before me. The CIT(A) has held in the lower appellate proceedings that the assessee is a co-operative bank within the meaning