How many judgments are there on Section 80P(2)(c)?

BharatTax indexes 90 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80P(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80P(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80P(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act?

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149) is the decision most relied on for Section 80P(2)(c), cited in 118 judgments. A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 80P(2)(c)?

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149) — 118 citing judgments; CIT v. Solapur Nagri Audyogik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (182 Taxmann 231) — 50 citing judgments; Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya v. CIT (119 Taxmann.com 383) — 45 citing judgments; Sind Co-operative Housing Society v. ITO (317 ITR 47) — 32 citing judgments; T.Kishan, Secunderabad v. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyd (23 Taxmann.com 383) — 21 citing judgments.

The decision most relied on for Section 80P(2)(c) is Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. (104 ITD 149), cited in 118 of the 90 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(c)

Jt. CIT v. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.

104 ITD 149 · 2007 · ITAT

118

citing judgments

A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned if it is attributable to the assessee's negligence or inaction, such as misplacing and forgetting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The provisions relating to limitation apply with rigour, and a lack of due care and attention is not a sufficient reason for condonation.

CIT v. Solapur Nagri Audyogik Sahakari Bank Ltd.

182 Taxmann 231 · Reported

citing judgments

Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Ramghat Ayodhya v. CIT

119 Taxmann.com 383 · 2020 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court dismisses appeals seeking condonation of excessive delay in filing, especially when the reasons provided for the delay, such as attributing it to an employee, are not found to be sufficient or convincing.

Sind Co-operative Housing Society v. ITO

317 ITR 47 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The doctrine of mutuality applies to co-operative societies, preventing income derived from members from being taxed as income from other sources. The court affirmed that the principle of mutuality, as accepted by the jurisdictional High Court, should be followed.

T.Kishan, Secunderabad v. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyd

23 Taxmann.com 383 · 2012 · Reported

citing judgments

In condoning a delay in filing an appeal, it must be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and not guilty of any negligence whatsoever.

Royal Stitches (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

156 Taxmann.com 361 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT (2016)(72 Taxmann.com 64)(Gujarat) 3. Sri Basaveshwara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT

47 Taxmann.com 189 · 2014 · ITAT

citing judgments

Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

174 Taxmann.com 534 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Jaoli Taluka Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit v. ITO

83 Taxmann.com 247 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

Mantola Co-op Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO

118 Taxmann.com 276 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80P(2)(c)

BANGANGA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT OJHAR (MIG),NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), NASHIK., NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1788 & 1789/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 & 2018-19 Banganga Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Ravsaheb, Bhagava, Nashik Chowk, Ojhar Niphad, Ozar Mig, Nashik – 422206. Pan: Aaajb0550G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Muttha – Virtual Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2022-23 Dated 22.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2024 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

BANGANGA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARIYADIT OJHAR (MIG),NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

JANKALYAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MAR SHAHAPUR,SHAHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KALYAN

ITA 6301/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

PUNE ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 2195/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2194 & 2195/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh V Dcit, Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, S. Circle-5, Pune. Katraj Dairy, Pune Satara Road, Katraj, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaaap0836A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.R.Bhagwat Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 19.12.2019 & 19.01.2021 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided In A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

PUNE ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 2194/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

SRI GANGADHARESHWARA SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,KOPPAL vs. ITO WARD - 1 KOPPAL, KOPPAL

ITA 1775/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian – JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

HUTATMA MADHYAVARTI SAHAKARI GRAHAK BHANDAR MARYADIT WALWA,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD - 5, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1834/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1834/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(d)

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.272 & 273/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 ) The Shiroda Progressive Urban Vs I T O, Multipurpose Cooperative National E Assessment . Society Limited, Centre, Shop.No.4, Opp: Police Station, Delhi. Shiroda Bhat, Ponda-403103.Goa Pan .No. Aabat7206P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

THE SHIRODA PROGRESSIVE URBAN MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 80P(2)(a)

DEEPALAXMI NAGARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SANGAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AURANGABAD

ITA 2323/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)(a)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

DEEPALAXMI NAGARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,SANGAMNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 2322/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)(a)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23.2.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MIG CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY GROUP II LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4075/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)