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)

1) was not considered upon by the ITAT Special Bench. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or section

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

68 taxmann.com 298] (copy enclosed) has held that the return filed beyond the period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s. 142(1) or 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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala I.T.A No. 23/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 10 Shri Trambakpur Sahkari Mandali Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT(CPC) High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1

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

1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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

1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(a)(v) of the Act. 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

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)

1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 7.3 Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1)/ 28 of the Act. Thus we disagree with the contention of the learned CIT-A. 12.1 Thus after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that The Assessing Officer had emphasized on the fact that the assessee failed to produce the necessary details of the parties. Indeed such details of the parties were

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

1)/ 28 of the Act. Thus we disagree with the contention of the learned CIT-A. 12.1 Thus after considering the facts in totality, we are of the view that The Assessing Officer had emphasized on the fact that the assessee failed to produce the necessary details of the parties. Indeed such details of the parties were

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

139(1) or by\nsuch notice.\ndated\nhave without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4) /\n23(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1) / 143(2) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961.\nNO.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars\nof such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI NAVDA MAHILA DOODH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED, VANTHALI JUNAGADH GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 604/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Road, Junagadh, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Vs. Gujarat-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat – 362610 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 617/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shri Navda Mahila Doodh Utpadak Income Tax Officer, Bhutnath Chambers College Sahkari Mandali Limited, Co. Popatbhai P Bharai, At. Navda, Tal. Road, Junagadh, Vs. Vanthali, Junagadh, Gujarat - 362610 Gujarat-362001 Pan/Gir No.: Aatas6002N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section, it is for us to decide which is the proper provision of the law under which such an order should have been made.” Therefore, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the return