BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

24 results for “TDS”+ Section 80P(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai146Bangalore62Raipur52Pune34Delhi27Chennai24Ahmedabad23Kolkata21Visakhapatnam19Cochin14Surat13Jaipur12Lucknow9Nagpur9Jabalpur7Karnataka6Jodhpur4Chandigarh3Panaji3Amritsar2Indore2Rajkot1Hyderabad1Varanasi1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)25Section 80P24Deduction19Section 244A14Section 15414Section 246A14Disallowance13Section 14A12Section 36(1)12TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. PANDYAN GRAMA BANK, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

4) of section 80P introduced by Finance Act 2006 clearly takes a cooperative bank out of the purview of deduction available under 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act Thus, if the assessee is a cooperative bank, it would not be eligible for such deduction Contention of the assessee is that in view of sections 22 arid

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 26310
Rectification u/s 1547

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 501/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

4) is out of harm’s way, all the Assessees in the present case are entitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 502/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

4) is out of harm’s way, all the Assessees in the present case are entitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 503/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194C

4) is out of harm’s way, all the Assessees in the present case are entitled to the benefit of the deduction contained in section 80P(2)(a)(i), notwithstanding that they may also be giving loans to their members which are not related to agriculture. Also, in case it is found that there are instances of loans being given

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, PUDUCHERRY vs. KALAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes’’

ITA 2190/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 5Section 56Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

80P(4)(b) and further that the assessee satisfies the second condition of s.56(cciv) of the Banking Regulation Act and thus held that as the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society, it continues to be eligible for deduction u/s.80P even after the insertion of sub-section (4) by the Finance Act, 1967. 7.3 As regards the disallowance

THE THANJAVUR DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,THANJAVUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE2(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

section 80(P)(2)(d). 3. The learned Principal Commissioner is believed to have set aside the valid order mainly on account of the objections raised by Revenue Audit party or the Internal Audit party and such action on the part of the Principal Commissioner is erroneous as the Audit parties are not the persons vested with powers to express

ITO WARD 5, PONDICHERRY vs. MS/ CENTRAL CO OP PROCESSING SUPPLY AND MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, PONDICHERY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 418/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 80P(2)(iii)

4. We heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material available on record. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 80P(2)(iii) of the Act. Section 80P(2)(iii) of the Act clearly says that marketing of agricultural produce grown by the members of the co-operative society is eligible for exemption under Section 80P

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

80P of the Act, the said principle was equally made applicable to other banks and commercial banks to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Therefore, by virtue of the above said circular, investments made by the bankingcompany should be treated as a business asset of the banking company or stock-in-trade. It is well settled in law that CBDT

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

80P of the Act, the said principle was equally made applicable to other banks and commercial banks to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Therefore, by virtue of the above said circular, investments made by the bankingcompany should be treated as a business asset of the banking company or stock-in-trade. It is well settled in law that CBDT

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

80P of the Act, the said principle was equally made applicable to other banks and commercial banks to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Therefore, by virtue of the above said circular, investments made by the bankingcompany should be treated as a business asset of the banking company or stock-in-trade. It is well settled in law that CBDT

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

80P of the Act, the said principle was equally made applicable to other banks and commercial banks to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Therefore, by virtue of the above said circular, investments made by the bankingcompany should be treated as a business asset of the banking company or stock-in-trade. It is well settled in law that CBDT

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2478/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 80P

80P of the 3 I.T.A. No.2478/Chny/17, ITA No. 2703/Chny/18 & ITA Nos. 558 & 559/Chny/2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that similar issue on an identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has already been decided the issue against the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment

THE GOVT. TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 12(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2703/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 80P

80P of the 3 I.T.A. No.2478/Chny/17, ITA No. 2703/Chny/18 & ITA Nos. 558 & 559/Chny/2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that similar issue on an identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has already been decided the issue against the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 12 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 558/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 80P

80P of the 3 I.T.A. No.2478/Chny/17, ITA No. 2703/Chny/18 & ITA Nos. 558 & 559/Chny/2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that similar issue on an identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has already been decided the issue against the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment

THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 12 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/18, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17 M/S. The Government The Income Tax Officer, Telecommunications Employees Ncw – 12(3)/Acit 12(1), Cooperative Society Ltd., New No. 112, Chennai. Old No. 37A, Sembudoss Street, Vs. Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabat3072B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 13.07.2017, 16.08.2018, 21.01.2020 & 27.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 & 2016-17. Since Common Grounds In Identical Facts Involved In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 80P

80P of the 3 I.T.A. No.2478/Chny/17, ITA No. 2703/Chny/18 & ITA Nos. 558 & 559/Chny/2020 Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that similar issue on an identical facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has already been decided the issue against the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment

PANDYAN GRAMA BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 688/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 685, 684, 687 & 688/Chny/2018 & 2443, 2444 & 2445/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Pandyan Grama Bank, The Assistant Commissioner Of Admn. Office, Vs. Income Tax, No. 2-70-1, Collectroate Complex, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar, 626 002. Virundhunagar, 626 001. [Pan: Aaaaap 0895P] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P. Gurusamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The AO gave effect to the orders of the ITAT on 13.05.2013, 14.03.2013 & 08.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Since, there were mistakes in the quantification of interest u/s. 244A, giving credit to TDS ie., to rectify the shortfall in credit

PANDYAN GRAMA BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2443/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 685, 684, 687 & 688/Chny/2018 & 2443, 2444 & 2445/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Pandyan Grama Bank, The Assistant Commissioner Of Admn. Office, Vs. Income Tax, No. 2-70-1, Collectroate Complex, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar, 626 002. Virundhunagar, 626 001. [Pan: Aaaaap 0895P] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P. Gurusamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The AO gave effect to the orders of the ITAT on 13.05.2013, 14.03.2013 & 08.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Since, there were mistakes in the quantification of interest u/s. 244A, giving credit to TDS ie., to rectify the shortfall in credit

PANDYAN GRAMA BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2444/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 685, 684, 687 & 688/Chny/2018 & 2443, 2444 & 2445/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Pandyan Grama Bank, The Assistant Commissioner Of Admn. Office, Vs. Income Tax, No. 2-70-1, Collectroate Complex, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar, 626 002. Virundhunagar, 626 001. [Pan: Aaaaap 0895P] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P. Gurusamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The AO gave effect to the orders of the ITAT on 13.05.2013, 14.03.2013 & 08.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Since, there were mistakes in the quantification of interest u/s. 244A, giving credit to TDS ie., to rectify the shortfall in credit

PANDYAN GRAMA BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 2445/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 685, 684, 687 & 688/Chny/2018 & 2443, 2444 & 2445/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Pandyan Grama Bank, The Assistant Commissioner Of Admn. Office, Vs. Income Tax, No. 2-70-1, Collectroate Complex, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar, 626 002. Virundhunagar, 626 001. [Pan: Aaaaap 0895P] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P. Gurusamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The AO gave effect to the orders of the ITAT on 13.05.2013, 14.03.2013 & 08.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Since, there were mistakes in the quantification of interest u/s. 244A, giving credit to TDS ie., to rectify the shortfall in credit

PANDYAN GRAMA BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA Nos

ITA 686/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 685, 684, 687 & 688/Chny/2018 & 2443, 2444 & 2445/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Pandyan Grama Bank, The Assistant Commissioner Of Admn. Office, Vs. Income Tax, No. 2-70-1, Collectroate Complex, Katcheri Road, Virudhunagar, 626 002. Virundhunagar, 626 001. [Pan: Aaaaap 0895P] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri P. Gurusamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 244ASection 246ASection 80P(2)(a)

80P(2)(a)(i) for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The AO gave effect to the orders of the ITAT on 13.05.2013, 14.03.2013 & 08.03.2013 for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Since, there were mistakes in the quantification of interest u/s. 244A, giving credit to TDS ie., to rectify the shortfall in credit