ITO, WD-36(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

section 80P(2) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The Hon’ble Kolkata Bench in the case of the Baksara Co-op. Credit Society Ltd held as under:- “12. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Limited (supra) cited

ITO, WD-35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KOLKATA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

section 80P(1), 80P(2) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on profit from the business of Holiday Homes on the decision of some other case laws which

JALUIDANGA PASCHIM NASARATPUR SAMABY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL vs. INCOME TAX OPPFICER, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN

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

80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan added the disallowable expenditures and provisions which has already been added by your appellant, in order to find out the Profits and gains of business

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, INT. TAX., KOLKATA

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected for scrutiny through computer assisted scrutiny system (CASS) The Learned come Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Burdwan added the disallowable expenditures and provisions which has already been added by your appellant, in order to find out the Profits and gains of business

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.

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

M/S NATIONAL COAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-32(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 12. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Limited (supra) cited by the ld. D.R. and the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited (supra) cited

SRIDHARPUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), BURDWAN

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section

ITO, WD-32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BOKARO STEEL EMPLOYEE'S CALCUTTA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 12. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Limited (supra) cited by the ld. D.R. and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited (supra) cited

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

68,54,700/-. On an appeal made by the WBSCARD Bank, the Ld. CIT(A) revised the income to Rs. 1,55,07,653/-. The 3 main reasons for the difference in total income computed by the assessee and the Income Tax Authorities were denial of exemption u/s 80P for Income from (a) interest earned on deposits made with Banks

RAJYADHARPARA CHANDPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

68,61,964 - Rs. 21, 46,2807- 47,15,684) Less : Deduction under chapter -VI NIL (as discussed above no deduction is eligible u/s 80P) Total Income 21,46,280/- 9. The Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Burdwan denied to allow the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 of the amount of interest

M/S NATIONAL COAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-32(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 1378/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 4 of 5 12. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Limited (supra) cited by the ld. D.R. and the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

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

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

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

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

MUNDUKHOLA BAKSAGARH SKUS LTD.,HOOGLY vs. ITO, WARD-24, HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward-24 Mundukhola Baksagarh Skus Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, G.T. Road, Baksararh, Panchpara, Hoogly, Khadinamore, Chinsurah, Vs. West Bengal-712501 Hooghly, West Benga 712101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabam7385E Assessee By : Shri Saumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

2 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹45,89,500/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as unexplained investment. Mundukhola Baksagarh SKUS Ltd; A.Y. 2017-18 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 19.12.2017, showing total income

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]

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

M/S NATIONAL COAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STAFF CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-32(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1249/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. National Coal Development Corporation -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-32(2) Staff Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaln 0409 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.07.2015 Of C.I.T(A)-9, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Follows :- “ 1.For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Holding That The Interest Income Earned By The Assessee-Credit Society Amounting To Rs. 40,76,664/- On Account Of Fixed Deposits Does Not Qualify For Deduction· U/S.80P. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Judgment In The Case Of Totgars Co - Operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Ito 322 Itr 283 (Sc) Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Assessee'S Case. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Allowed The Proportionate Deduction In Respect Of Interest Paid / Payable To The Members Out Of The Interest Income. 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating Ground No. (Vi) Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. 5. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Giving Any Finding/Direction To The A.O. In Respect Of Ground Nos. (I) (Vi) & (Vii).

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 12. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Limited (supra) cited by the Id. D.R. and the decision of the Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited (supra) cited

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High 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

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BONGAON CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, BONGAON WEST BENGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: the Assessing Officer and hence it was rightly treated as Unexplained Cash Credit.

80P(2)(d) of the Act. 1.2 Aggrieved with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) the Department is in appeal through the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that as per RBI Notification in RBI/2016-17/130 DCM (Pig) No. 1273/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 14/11/2016, deposit of SBN (specified bank notes) to District Central