ITAT Cochin Judgments — June 2024

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

ITA 229/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2024AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed increased its installed capacity by installing the new plant and producing marketable by-products. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for additional depreciation.

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

ITA 706/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2024Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the AO's initial acceptance of the return. It also considered a subsequent order by the PCCIT condoning the delay in filing the return itself, which validated the assessee's claim for deduction.

CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT

ITA 160/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked the power to disallow the deduction claimed under Section 80P at the processing stage under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on this count was deleted.

MANANTHAVADY CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,WAYANAD vs ITO WARD 2 , KALPETTA

ITA 161/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing verification of interest/dividend income from investments with co-operative societies. It also clarified that if interest from banks is treated as 'Income from other sources', relief under Section 57 should be granted.

CHEMANCHERY RURAL CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,CALICUT vs ITO WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

ITA 175/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's return, filed on 11.10.2018, was not belated as there were extensions of the due date up to 15.10.2018 and subsequently 31.10.2018. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P could not be denied on this ground.

M/S POOYAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOLLAM

ITA 119/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue of expenditure incurred to generate interest income on deposits to the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee is entitled to claim such expenditure under Section 57(iii) if the income is not allowable under Section 80P.

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 667/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing physical documents and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). All issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 236/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(1) read with Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 26/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(1) read with Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 182/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(1) read with Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

LALY CHIRAKANDATHIL GEORGE,KOCHI vs THE ACIT, KOCHI

ITA 73/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the inordinate delay in filing. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay and did not challenge the CIT(A)'s order on merits.

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

ITA 101/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Jun 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(1) read with Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

M/S POOYAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOLLAM

ITA 65/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee's representative. The grounds of appeal challenge the denial of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a), (c), and (d), arguing that the assessee, being a co-operative society, is eligible for these deductions, and its investment income should be treated as business income.

M/S POOYAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOLLAM

ITA 66/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee's representative. The grounds of appeal challenge the denial of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a), (c), and (d), arguing that the assessee, being a co-operative society, is eligible for these deductions, and its investment income should be treated as business income.