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

vi) xxx (vii) xxx the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such activities. " 7. The word 'attributable' used in the said section is of great importance. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to derive from its use in various

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

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

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)

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 received from Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank. According to Section 2

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

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

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

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).

vi) and (vii). 2 M/s. National Coal Development Corpn. Staff Coop.Credit Society Ltd. A.Y.2012-13 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. The Assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society. The assessee derived the following interest income :- (i)Interest on Fixed Deposit Rs.40,76,664/- (ii) Interest

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

VI to\nthe Companies Act' is made for the limited purpose of empowering the\nassessing authority to rely upon the authentic statement of accounts of the\ncompany. While so looking into the accounts of the company, an Assessing\nOfficer under the Income-tax Act has to accept the authenticity of the\naccounts with reference to the provisions of the Companies

BURDWAN SATGACHIA JANAKALYAN SOCIETY,,MEMARI, BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Burdwan Satgachia Janakalyan Ito Ward 1(1) Society, Aaykar Bhawan, Court Satgachia, Memari, Burdwan, Compound, Burdwan, Vs. West Bengal-713422 West Bengal-713101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab8302K Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

2) of the Act on 13.12.2019. Finally, on the basis of information available with the ld. AO, the ld. AO treated the amount deposited by the assessee aggregating to ₹68,10,000/- comprising ₹ 55,10,000/- cash deposited and 13,00,000/- time deposit during the year as unexplained money thereby making an addition of ₹68,10,000/- made

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

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.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

ENAYETPUR S K U S LTD.,MALDA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, MALDA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargandshri Sanjay Awasthi

68 of the Act. 4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,01,718/- made by the A.O on account of contingent liabilities. 5. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.” Ground