M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

3. We observe that though the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, primarily two issues are involved in the instant appeal. The first issue for consideration before us is whether the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act in respect of investment in new property which was not made within the due date of furnishing

GODHAVADAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,GODHAVADAR, LILIYA MOTA, AMRELI-365535 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 6,53,498/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment

BATAVA DEVLI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BATAVA DEVLI, TAL. KUNLAVA, DIST. AMRELI. vs. THE ADIT, (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

3,99,585/- under section 80P of the Act on the ground that the claim of assessee was incorrect under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act since the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022

AMBARADI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,AMBARADI , DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

SHREE SANALIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,LITAL MOTALILIYA SANALIYA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

AMRUTPUR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,VILLAGE: - AMRUTPUR TALUKA DHARI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

DHARESHWAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ,VILLAGE: - DHARESHWAR, TALUKA: - RAJULA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1). The Ld. A.O. CPC Bengaluru processed the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a)(ii) disallowing their claim of deduction u/s. 80P as the returns were not filed within the due date. 3

CHAKARGADH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,CHAKARGADH SEVA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT(CPC),, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

139(1) of the Act. In view of this, the disallowance made by the CPC is upheld Therefore, ground no 3 of the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) denying assessee’s claim of exemption under section

DAHIDA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,VILLAGE: - DAHIDA, DIST.:- AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

139(1) of the Act. Thus the CPC, Centre demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,420/- as tax payable by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

SHREE ANTALIYA KHETI VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,LILIYA MOTA, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

139(1) of the Act. Thus the CPC, Centre demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,420/- as tax payable by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

ALIUDEPUR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,ALIUDEPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA LATHI, DIST.: - AMRELI-365430 vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

139(1) of the Act. Thus the CPC, Centre demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,420/- as tax payable by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before CPC Centre claiming that there was no provision in section 143(1)(a) to make adjustment to the returned income by disallowing

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing deduction of Rs. I.T.A No. 23/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Shri Trambakpur Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT(CPC) 4,11,630/- claimed by the Appellant under various sub-sections of Sec. 80P of the Act as per return of income filed for the year. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw appeal anytime

SHRI NAVA UJALA SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT NAVA UJALA, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, GUIJARAT-365450 vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing deduction of Rs. I.T.A No. 20/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Shri Nava Ujala Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT(CPC) 2,12,008/- claimed by the Appellant under various sub-sections of Sec. 80P of the Act as per return of income filed for the year. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw

DHAR SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,DHAR, TALUKA: - SAVARKUNDLA, DIST. AMRELI-GUJARAT. vs. THE DCIT(CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 5,13,568/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated

SHREE LUNIDHAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,LUNIDHAR, TALUKA KUNKAVAV, DIST. AMRELI. vs. ASSESSING OFFICER (CPC), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment

MEDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,MEDI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 28-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 5,52,154/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment

SHRI NAVAVAGHNIYA SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANAGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 80P of Rs. 3,52,877/-. The Return of Income filed by the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru vide Intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 11.01.2021, thereby denying the benefit of claim of deduction u/s. 80P for the reason that the Return of Income was not filed within the due date prescribed u/s. 139

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S ATUL AUTO LIMITED,, SHAPAR.VERAVAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance is that deduction u/s. 80-IA was claimed in revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act and not in the original Return of income u/s. 139(1) and this is not in tune with provisions of section 80AC and section 80A (5) of the Act. Regarding this the assessee has placed reliance on decision

ATUL AUTO LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance is that deduction u/s. 80-IA was claimed in revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act and not in the original Return of income u/s. 139(1) and this is not in tune with provisions of section 80AC and section 80A (5) of the Act. Regarding this the assessee has placed reliance on decision