AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Amravati Jilha Vima Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.8/Nag./2024 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in not accepting condonation of delay and decided appeal on merits, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section under which the deduction is claimed Rs. 1. 80P(2)(a)(i) 73,64,124 2 u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) 36,239 TOTAL Rs. 74,00,363 During the course of the Assessment proceeding, Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 8-P with the following observation at Page No. 11/12 of the Assessment Order

JALSAMPDA KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , WARDHA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryjalsampda Karmchari Ito, Ward-2, Wardha. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Wardha, 1, Dr. Vs. Adyalkar Bhavan, Arvi Road, Shivaji Square, Wardha-442001 Pan: Aaaaw 0478 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 4. In this case, the Assessee is a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities to its members, consisting of only employees of Irrigation department of Maharashtra State in Wardha District. The Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 01/11/2017 and declaring total income at Rs. NIL, claimed the deduction under Chapter

M/S. NEERI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

80P(2)(a)(i) of the I. T. Act, 1961.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed Affidavit–cum–application dated 11/07/2023, duly sworn in, seeking condonation of delay. The reason for the delay in filing

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,TUMSAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHANDARA, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2 Jankalyan Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 03 days in filing the present appeal. Since the delay being minor, the same is hereby condoned. 4. The short issue that we need to adjudication relates to addition under section 80P

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr.CIT not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein “set aside

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr.CIT not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein “set aside

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

80P(2)(d), had therein rendered his order as erroneous, insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr.CIT not finding favour with the reply of the assessee, wherein the latter had tried to impress upon him that it was duly eligible for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act, therein “set aside

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.483/Nag./2024 3. The AO and learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction u/s 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in the Return of Income. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. 5. The Appellant

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961 and thus addition made is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10. Any other ground

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 250 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. That, the order under appeal is served on the Assessee on 14/06/2024 because of which the appeal was to be filed on or before the 13/08/2024. However, the appellant E-filed Form No. 36 on 24/08/2024 and uploaded the signed documents on 25/09/2024, hence there is a delay

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in affirming the penalty where there is no under-reporting and misreporting of income. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. Whether in the facts

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in affirming the penalty where there is no under-reporting and misreporting of income. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4. Whether in the facts

B P ERGO EMPLOYEE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on account of interest income from nationalized banks. The assessee had not complied with the opportunities given by the CIT(A) and could not furnish documentary evidence to support its claim.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

VNIT KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

80P(2)(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, of Rs. 17,66,780/- by assessee in original return of income. 5. The Assessee craves to add, alter, vary, omit, amend, or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed

HIVTAP NIRMULAN KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-1 , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehivtap Nirmulan Karmachari, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit T.B. Karyalayapandharkawada Road, ……………. Appellant Yavatmal -445 001, Maharashtra. Pan–Aabah6751K V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………. Respondent Ward–1, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

condoning the delay in filing the appeal, ignoring that the delay occurred due to reasonable and bona fide reasons beyond the control of the appellant. 2 That the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reasons furnished for the delay constituted "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence

FDCM KARMACHARI SAHAKA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 1291 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated that even though various grounds