Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Assessee denied section 80P deduction for failing to file return of income under sections 139(1) or 139(4)

        Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Tumkur

        Madhu Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Tumkur - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

        The primary legal issue in this judgment is whether the assessee, a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act when it failed to file a return of income within the prescribed time limits under Sections 139(1) and 139(4). The court also considered the applicability of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC in determining eligibility for deductions when no valid return was filed. Additionally, the court examined whether the principles of liberal interpretation for cooperative societies could override statutory requirements for filing returns.

        2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

        Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

        The legal framework revolves around Sections 80P, 80A(5), and 80AC of the Income Tax Act. Section 80P provides deductions for income earned by cooperative societies. Section 80A(5) stipulates that no deduction shall be allowed unless the claim is made in the return of income. Section 80AC, as amended by the Finance Act 2018, requires that the return be filed within the due date specified under Section 139(1) to claim deductions.

        The court relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT, which emphasized the necessity of filing a return within the prescribed time to claim deductions under Section 80P.

        Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

        The Tribunal interpreted that the statutory provisions clearly require the filing of a return within the prescribed time limits to claim deductions under Section 80P. The court noted that the statutory scheme under the Income Tax Act mandates strict compliance with the filing requirements as a pre-condition for claiming deductions. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions for deductions must be strictly construed in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

        Key Evidence and Findings

        The assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 within the prescribed time limits under Sections 139(1) and 139(4). Despite receiving multiple notices under Section 142(1) from the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee failed to respond adequately, leading to an assessment under Section 144, denying the deduction under Section 80P.

        Application of Law to Facts

        The Tribunal applied Section 80A(5) to conclude that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80P due to its failure to file a return of income. The Tribunal also applied the amended Section 80AC, which further restricted the allowance of deductions to returns filed within the due date under Section 139(1). The court found that the assessee's failure to meet these statutory requirements precluded it from claiming the deduction.

        Treatment of Competing Arguments

        The assessee argued for a liberal interpretation of the provisions, citing the cooperative nature of its operations and the judgment of the Supreme Court favoring cooperative societies. However, the Tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive in light of the clear statutory requirements and the Kerala High Court's judgment, which took precedence over earlier ITAT decisions favoring the assessee.

        Conclusions

        The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80P due to its failure to file a valid return of income within the prescribed time limits. The court upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the appeal.

        3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

        The Tribunal held that the statutory scheme requires strict compliance with the filing of returns within prescribed time limits to claim deductions under Section 80P. The court quoted the Kerala High Court's reasoning: "It is trite that a provision for deduction or exemption under a taxing Statute has to be strictly construed against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue."

        The core principle established is that the statutory pre-condition of filing a return within prescribed time limits cannot be waived or relaxed, even for cooperative societies. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, reinforcing that deductions under Section 80P are contingent upon compliance with Sections 80A(5) and 80AC.

        The final determination was that the assessee's appeal was dismissed, and the denial of the deduction under Section 80P was upheld due to non-compliance with statutory filing requirements.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found