NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

80P(2)(d). 5. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone petition of the assessee society for filing the appeal within prescribed time and dismissed the appeal without going through merits of the case which is unjustified and bad in law. 6. In finance Act, 2006, section

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

80P(2)(d). 5. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone petition of the assessee society for filing the appeal within prescribed time and dismissed the appeal without going through merits of the case which is unjustified and bad in law. 6. In finance Act, 2006, section

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

80P(2)(d). 5. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone petition of the assessee society for filing the appeal within prescribed time and dismissed the appeal without going through merits of the case which is unjustified and bad in law. 6. In finance Act, 2006, section

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

80P(2)(d). 5. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone petition of the assessee society for filing the appeal within prescribed time and dismissed the appeal without going through merits of the case which is unjustified and bad in law. 6. In finance Act, 2006, section

VIHAN VIBHAG CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

80P(2)(d) of the Act is, being without jurisdiction, unwarranted of facts, arbitrary, perverse, bad in law, illegal and invalid, liable to be struck down. 4. Your appellant further reserves its rights to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before or at the time of hearing of an appeal.” 3. The appeal filed

THE PUNA KUMBHARIA GROUP CO-OP FRUITS AND VEGE GROW SOCIETY LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.354 To 355/Srt/2025 Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The Puna Kumbharia Groud Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Fruits & Vege Grow Society Circle – 3(2), Limited, Surat Kela Yard Dumbhai, Puna Kumbhariya Road, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaap1147N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. These two appeals filed

THE PUNA KUMBHARIA GROUP CO-OP FRUITS AND VEGE GROW SOCIETY LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.354 To 355/Srt/2025 Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) The Puna Kumbharia Groud Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Fruits & Vege Grow Society Circle – 3(2), Limited, Surat Kela Yard Dumbhai, Puna Kumbhariya Road, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaap1147N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. These two appeals filed

ASHWINKUMAR ARBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Ashwinkumar Arban Co- Principal Commissioner Of Operative Society Ltd., Income Tax-1, Surat. Vs. 7-8, Hiranagar-2, Patel Nagar, Varachha A.K. Road, Surat- 395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aabta 0698 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue on the condonation of delay

THE PURSHOTTAM FARMERS CO.OP COTTON GINNING & PRESSING SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

condonation of delay, the Bench may take decision as per law. 5. On merit, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue fully supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

VEHEVAL MILK PRODUCER CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["250", "143(3)", "144B", "80P(d)", "249(3)", "249(2)"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred