DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

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

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

68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction under section 80P of the Act to the tune of ` 9,84,733. The learned A.R. for the assessee pleaded that this ground was taken by the assesse before

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On\nverification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for\ndeduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return.\na) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable u/s 80AC. Section 80 AC\n(ii) specifies that

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT , YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

68,72,348/- on account of interest received on investments being non banking income not eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case entire income of the assessee

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

68,72,348/- on account of interest received on investments being non banking income not eligible for deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act'1961 is unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case entire income of the assessee

THE SOMALWAR ACADEMY EDUCATION SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY MAR.,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAR 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on dated 26/03/2019 claimed the deduction of Rs. 7,46,340/- u/sec. 80P of the Act, which was disallowed by the CPC vide intimation/order dated 04/07/2019 u/sec. 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessee challenged the said disallowance/addition