ITAT Cochin Judgments — July 2018

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs M/S.POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES LTD, ERNAKULAM

ITA 256/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

THE ITO, WD-5, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs THE VELLOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM

ITA 143/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 574/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for denying deduction on trade income and CAMPCO income, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of insurance commission was also remanded for de novo consideration.

SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 575/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for denying deduction on trade income and CAMPCO income, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of insurance commission was also remanded for de novo consideration.

SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 576/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for denying deduction on trade income and CAMPCO income, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of insurance commission was also remanded for de novo consideration.

THE ITO, KOTTAYAM vs THE KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM

ITA 140/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Society case.

THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs THE NEELOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM

ITA 141/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Society case.

THE ITO, WARD-3, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs THE MANNANAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM

ITA 142/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Interest earned on investments with sub-treasury and banks is also eligible for this deduction.

THE ITO, WD-4, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs UZHAVA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 145/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Society case.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs M/S.THE KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICED CO-OP BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM

ITA 139/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the Chirakkal Service Co-operative Society case.

SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 578/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for denying deduction on trade income and CAMPCO income, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of insurance commission was also remanded for de novo consideration.

SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 577/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for denying deduction on trade income and CAMPCO income, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of insurance commission was also remanded for de novo consideration.

THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 506/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 539/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 537/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 508/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 507/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 510/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 540/COCH/2017[12-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KASARGODE vs THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE

ITA 509/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 541/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs THE PERLA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 538/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. It found that the Reserve Bank of India treats the assessee and similar societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act, and has issued letters to this effect. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative bank' when the RBI, the competent authority, had already classified it. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), finding the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. squarely applicable. Regarding interest on treasury deposits, the Tribunal followed co-ordinate bench orders and directed the AO to grant deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). For trade income, the Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided specific reasons for denying deduction. As the assessee claimed it was for supplying agricultural items to members, eligible under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,KOCHI vs THE PR.CIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous due to a lack of proper inquiry into whether the income from letting out the building was assessable as business income. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that when revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 is invoked for issues not covered by a reassessment order, the limitation period runs from the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. Therefore, the revisionary order was time-barred.

THE ITO,WD-4, KOLLAM vs KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOLLAM

ITA 144/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

THE ITO, COCHIN vs LATE SRI.K.SASIDHARAN REP BY SMT. K.P.SAILAJA, COCHIN

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that the time limit for investment in a new residential property under Section 54F includes the extended due date under Section 139(4). However, the intermediary period between sale and investment requires scrutiny regarding deposit in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 241/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

SRI.AJU ABDURAHIMAN,CALICUT vs THE ITO, CALICUT

ITA 400/COCH/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the unexplained investment issue, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. For the commission issue, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the capital gains and estimate the income at 2% of the transaction value.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 237/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

SRI.AJU ABDURAHIMAN,CALICUT vs THE ITO, CALICUT

ITA 401/COCH/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the unexplained investment issue, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. For the commission issue, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the capital gains and estimate the income at 2% of the transaction value.

TORRY HARRIS SEA FOODS LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 447/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision to reject the arbitrary 3% adjustment for glazing, finding no evidence to support it. It also upheld the disallowance of EIA monitoring fees due to non-deduction of TDS.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 242/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 236/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 240/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 238/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 239/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the demand for late filing fees under Section 234E, computed and intimated under Section 200A, was not permissible for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendments to Section 200A were prospective. Therefore, the levy was invalid for the periods in question.

SRI.JOY K.V.,TRICHUR vs THE ACIT, CIR-2(1), RG-2, TRICHUR

ITA 207/COCH/2018[2000-01]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2000-01Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions, as the factum of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not proved. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not independently examine the matter for penalty proceedings.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 243/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

M/S. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 146/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that returns filed belatedly during the pendency of appellate proceedings can be considered for deduction claims, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the claim for deduction u/s 80P.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 244/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

M/S. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

ITA 147/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that returns filed belatedly during the pendency of appellate proceedings can be considered for deduction claims, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the claim for deduction u/s 80P.

THE ITO, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs M/S. KAKKAODI SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOZHIKKODE

ITA 522/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that an identical issue was considered in the case of ITO v. The Chengala Service Co-operative Bank Limited, where the Tribunal, after considering judicial pronouncements, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2). The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. had categorically held that when a primary agricultural credit society is registered as such under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, it is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2). The Tribunal further reasoned that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be construed in the context of the State Legislature's law under which the society is formed, and that the definition of 'member' under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes various categories. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, and the Reserve Bank of India treats such societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling within the ambit of the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the AO was not competent to decide otherwise. The Tribunal concluded that the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was not applicable, and the jurisdictional High Court's judgment was squarely applicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of deduction.

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 246/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

THE HEAD MISTRESS,A.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANNI,MALAPPURAM vs THE ACIT, CALICUT

ITA 245/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

THE ITO WD-2(3), KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs M/S.PERUMANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KOZHIKKODE

ITA 529/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be construed in the context of the State Legislature's law under which the co-operative society is formed, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in U.P. Co-op. Cane Union Federation Ltd. The Bombay High Court in Jalgaon District Central v. UOI (2004) 265 ITR 423 (Bom) was cited, which held that nominal members are also members under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and entitled to benefits under Section 80P. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The Reserve Bank of India, the competent authority, treats the assessee societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative Bank' within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others is identical to the facts of the present case and squarely applicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ITO, WD-2(1), KOZHIKKODE vs THE NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OP BANK LTD, KOZHIKKODE

ITA 516/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be construed in the context of the State Legislature's law under which the co-operative society is formed, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in U.P. Co-op. Cane Union Federation Ltd. The Bombay High Court in Jalgaon District Central v. UOI (2004) 265 ITR 423 (Bom) was cited, which held that nominal members are also members under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and entitled to benefits under Section 80P. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The Reserve Bank of India, the competent authority, treats the assessee societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative Bank' within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others is identical to the facts of the present case and squarely applicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ITO, TIRUR vs M/S.THE PONMUNDAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, MALAPPURAM

ITA 390/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

THE ITO, WARD-2, KASARGODE, KASARGODE vs SECRETYARY, PANATHADY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KASARGODE

ITA 543/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in 'The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd.' is not applicable to the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The explanation to Section 80P(4) clarifies that 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' and 'Co-operative Bank' have the same meaning as in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as the competent authority under the Banking Regulation Act, treats the assessee societies and similar entities as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling within the ambit of the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has issued letters to such societies confirming their status as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, exempting them from banking licenses. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative Bank' contrary to the RBI's determination. The Tribunal found the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in 'The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.' to be identical to the facts of the present case and squarely applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) which had correctly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross objections/cross appeals filed by the assessee, which supported the CIT(A)'s orders, were dismissed as infructuous.

THE ITO, WARD-4, KANNUR, KANNUR vs M/S.KURUMATHUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KANNUR

ITA 557/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be construed in the context of the State Legislature's law under which the co-operative society is formed, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in U.P. Co-op. Cane Union Federation Ltd. The Bombay High Court in Jalgaon District Central v. UOI (2004) 265 ITR 423 (Bom) was cited, which held that nominal members are also members under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and entitled to benefits under Section 80P. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The Reserve Bank of India, the competent authority, treats the assessee societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative Bank' within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others is identical to the facts of the present case and squarely applicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ITO, WARD-4, KANNUR, KANNUR vs M/S.KURUMATHUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, KANNUR

ITA 556/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present cases. The Tribunal reasoned that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) must be construed in the context of the State Legislature's law under which the co-operative society is formed, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in U.P. Co-op. Cane Union Federation Ltd. The Bombay High Court in Jalgaon District Central v. UOI (2004) 265 ITR 423 (Bom) was cited, which held that nominal members are also members under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and entitled to benefits under Section 80P. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that as per Section 3 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, its provisions do not apply to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The Reserve Bank of India, the competent authority, treats the assessee societies as 'Primary Agricultural Credit Societies' not falling under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to decide whether the assessee was a 'Primary Agricultural Credit Society' or a 'Co-operative Bank' within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others is identical to the facts of the present case and squarely applicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.