BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

31 results for “section 68”+ Section 120clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,149Mumbai933Karnataka517Bangalore398Jaipur201Pune200Kolkata198Hyderabad196Chennai191Ahmedabad169Chandigarh151Cochin101Indore75Raipur73Surat55Calcutta53Telangana51Rajkot48Cuttack40Visakhapatnam37Lucknow34Panaji31Guwahati31Nagpur29Ranchi28Amritsar20Patna19SC14Allahabad12Jodhpur7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Agra5Jabalpur4Orissa3Dehradun2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)55Section 80P(2)(d)48Deduction31Section 26329Section 143(3)16Section 80P15Business Income11Exemption7Addition to Income7Section 80P(2)(c)

MR. MALLIKARJUN APPANNA ITI,GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

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

ITA 419/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. A. S. Patil, Tax ConsultantFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Joshi, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 68Section 69

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D are not attracted to levy tax under section 115BBE. The assessee declared an amount in the return of income u/s 139. On the basis of the declared income which was found in survey the application of section 115BBE is unjustified. The concealment, which is found during the time of survey

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 2516
Section 115B4

THE ATHANI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 90/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68 of the Income Tax Act, for cash credits based on deposits in bank, without going through the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add and or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Coming to the first and foremost issue of the assessee

THE PONDA EDUCATION SOCIETY EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 132/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S.J. KamatFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,206/-; respectively during the course of assessment hearing dated 20.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. 2 ITA.No.132/PAN/2019 The Ponda Education Society Employee Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Ponda Goa. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival submissions. The first and foremost issue between the parties is that of assessee’s status

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NYT,INGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPANI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 113/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

RAMANAGULI GROUP SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,ANKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 40/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 115/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,KADATOKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

SHREE ADINATH MINORITY CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PHONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3), PANAJI

ITA 295/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE BARDEZ BAZAR CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAPUSA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 267/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE BARDEZ BAZAR CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAPUSA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 268/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE PARSHWANATH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

ITA 80/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE CANDOLIM URBAN CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,CANDOLIM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI

ITA 204/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

M/S THE QUEPEM URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,QUEPEM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, MARGAO

ITA 248/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Amogh Arlekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE BHANDARI CO-OP CREDIT SOIETY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Amogh Arlekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 110/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing

THE PIRNA URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PIRNA, GOA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 152/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

120 taxmann.com 10. 5. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of exemption after due application of mind on the issue in appeal and, therefore, the Explanation 2 to section 263 cannot be invoked. However, the ld. PCIT on due consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing