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

5 M/s. Chandrakant H. Kakkad vs. ITO denied the deduction. The claim of assessee is that the new asset was acquired jointly with daughter in law before the end of time allowed u/s 139(4) for furnishing the return of income and hence he should be allowed proportionate deduction u/s 54 in view of judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified. Again, in the case of Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (CPC) 49 taxmann.com 28 (Rajkot - Trib.), the assessee, a co-operative society claimed deduction under section 80P. The Assessing Officer denied said deduction

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

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

5 of 10 the due date mentioned in section 139(1) only, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P was correctly

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)

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.3,99,585/- u/s 80-P of the Act on I.T.A No. 314/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Batava Devli Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT (CPC) merits. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal. Total

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

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

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

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

section 139. Hence the deduction u/s 80P cannot be allowed to the appellant. For the above stated reasons and respectfully following the above stated decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai, the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P is upheld. 6. In result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 5

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)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

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)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

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)

5 Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and Ors. vs. ADIT (CPC) filed within the due date as specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Section 80AC is reproduced below: "Deduction not to be allowed unless return furnished. 80AC. Where in computing the total income of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after

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

section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “5. DECISION: 5.1 All the grounds of appeal are related to the solitary issue of disallowance

M/S. PATEL BRASS WORKS PVT. LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE-5, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

139(5) of the IT Act. The AO further observed that as per section 80IA(7) r.w.s 18BBB the audit report in form no. 10CCB is to be obtained and furnished on or before due date of filing of return so as to entitle the assessee to said deduction. With above observation, the AO disallowed

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

section 139(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal with the following observations: “5. DECISION: 5.1 All the grounds of appeal are related to the solitary issue of disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,52,154/- under section 80P of the Act. The I.T.A No. 38/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 6 Medi Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. vs. ADIT(CPC) 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

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)

5 Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. A.O. Hence, the action of CPC is bad in law and therefore Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act for not filing return within the due date prescribed under section 139