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

C"- Bench Kolkata in their 'decision in IT No 1693/Kol/ 2012 dated 30th October,2014, relevant for the A.Y 2008-09 for the same assessee, namely The S.E, S.E.C. &. E.Co Railways Employees' Credit Society, Kolkata. In that case also the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the matter of Totgars Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ITO [2010] 188 Taxman

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

68,45,861/- and claimed deduction for the same amount u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. The assessee during the year has shown gross income from interest for Rs.8.35 crores which includes interest income of Rs.1,60,76,339/-on the money deposited in current, savings and fixed deposits with the bank. However

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

c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the activities other than as mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society filed income tax return for the Assessment year 2017-18 on20/10/2017 showing total income Nil. 3. The Computation of Total Income as per income tax return submitted

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)

c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the activities other than as mentioned in section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961. Your appellant society filed income tax return for the Assessment year 2017-18 on20/10/2017 showing total income Nil. 3. The Computation of Total Income as per income tax return submitted

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

C(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 295/KOL/ 2015 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. National Coal Development Corporation Staff Cooperative Credit Society Limited,.......................................Appellant 25, Brabourne Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN: AAALN 0409 N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..................................................................Respondent Ward-32(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700 071 Appearances by: Shri Subash

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 for SBN deposited during demonetisetion period, if assesses filed details of such deposits. a) Yagnavalkya Souhardha Credit Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO WARD-5(2)(4) Bangalore ITAT "B" Bench Bangalore ITA No 1086/Bang/2022 b) Om Sai Co-Op. Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit vs PCIT Hubli ITA No.454/Bang/2022 ITAT "C" Bench Bangalore c) The Totgars' Co-operative Sale Society

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

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

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

80P(2)(a)(i) but would also be applicable to\nall banks/commercial_banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949\napplies.[Para 37]\n■ From this, Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that this circular\ncarves out a distinction between 'stock-in-trade' and 'investment' and\nprovides that if the motive behind purchase and sale of shares is to earn\nprofit

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

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) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year

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

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) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would not apply to the impugned assessment year

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.

C” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1101/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32, Kolkata, 10B Middleton Row, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700071 .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Bongaon Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Bongaon, 1st Floor, Banerjee Market Jessor Road Bongaon S.O. North 24 Parganas - 743235 [PAN: AAAAB6325N] ..........…..….................... Respondent Appearances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN vs. SANHATI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

68* amounting to Rs. 52,65,558/- and total income declared as Rs. 1,45,01,526/-. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order of the Ld. AO to the Ld. CIT(A) wherein Ld. CIT(A) after considering the documents and submissions allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

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:

c) Addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 2,42,05,275/-. Total income assessed Rs. 2,99,60,362/-.” 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was allowed by observing as follows: “7.1. The argument of the appellant in this regard, is that, there

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant to pay dividend Distribution Tax as per provisions of section

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80P of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Choudhary Transport Co. vs Income Tax Officer in Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009 and has very cryptically mentioned that “In view of the above, it is mandatory for the appellant to pay dividend Distribution Tax as per provisions of section