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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

139(1) or by\nsuch notice.\ndated\n\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\n\nhave concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT 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

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, 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