INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: Both these appeals in ITA No.2096/Chny/2025 and 2095/Chny/2025 are filed by the Revenue are directed against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2024 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2017-18 against the order of the Assessing officer (NFAC

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: Both these appeals in ITA No.2096/Chny/2025 and 2095/Chny/2025 are filed by the Revenue are directed against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2024 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2017-18 against the order of the Assessing officer (NFAC

SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

d) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.76,17,761/- claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole controversy in this case is whether the assessee

IRULA SNAKE CATCHERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. (Ita No.1790/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Irula Snake Catchers Industrial Co- V. Income Tax Officer, Operative Society Ltd, Non-Coporate Ward 22(1), Mahabalipuram Road, Tambaram Vadanemmli Village, Perur Post, Chennai-603 104 [Pan:Aaaai 7894 M] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

d), without appreciating the fact that, the claim of the assessee as a cottage industry and the entire Income was claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(ii). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that, the assessee is a cottage industry and the entire income is attributable to business

SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. DCIT, CRICLE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

d) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.76,17,761/- claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole controversy in this case is whether the assessee

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Vijay Gupta decided on 20.03.2016 referred to the decision of the :-7-: Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 367 and the Apex Court in the said decision has held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance included

M/S APEX TRANSWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.932/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.Apex Transworld Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 38, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadca 7034 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.K. Ramesh Babu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

80P(2)(d) on interest income on investment from a Co-operative Bank and on reserve fund interest received from above bank. These fresh claims made by assessee were rejected by Assessing Officer - Hon'ble High Court of Madras held - Since claim made by assessee with regard to interest income on investment was not made in original return and only

POTHERI VILLAGE WEANING FOOD MANUFACTURING WOMENS DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL COOP,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, NCW 22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1055/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Potheri Village Weaning Food Income Tax Officer, Manufacturing Womens V. Non-Corporate Ward – 22(1), Development Industrial Coop, Tambaram. 12, Amman Koil Street, Potheri Katankolathur Post, Kanchipuram – 603 203. [Pan: Aaaap-9745-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act by a ‘cottage industry’ have been specified in para 3 as detailed below: “(a) a cottage industry is one which is carried on a small scale with a small amount of capital and a small number of workers and has a turnover which is correspondingly limited; (b) it should not be required

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. Explanation.- in this clause, (a) "specified entity" means,- (i) a financial corporation specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) ; (ii) a financial corporation which is a public sector company ; (iii) a banking

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

d) payment to jockeys and trainers fund and employees welfare society is a kind of contribution connected with the business activities of the assessee and the said payments are also not covered by any of the TDS provisions. (e) the last item “Syces subsidy” is the money paid to the owners of horses from out of stake money

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

d) payment to jockeys and trainers fund and employees welfare society is a kind of contribution connected with the business activities of the assessee and the said payments are also not covered by any of the TDS provisions. (e) the last item “Syces subsidy” is the money paid to the owners of horses from out of stake money

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

d) payment to jockeys and trainers fund and employees welfare society is a kind of contribution connected with the business activities of the assessee and the said payments are also not covered by any of the TDS provisions. (e) the last item “Syces subsidy” is the money paid to the owners of horses from out of stake money

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’’

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

D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are appeals filed by the Revenue directed against an order dated 28.06.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry. 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced hereunder:- 1.‘’It was seen from the assessment order dt. 31.03.2016 that assessing officer treated the assessee as co-operative bank

MADURA COATS EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SERVICE CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Maduracoats Employees & The Income Tax Officer, Public Service Co-Op Ward 4, Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Tirunelveli Ambasamudram, Agasthiyarpatti S.O, Agasthiyarpatti, Tirunelveli – 627428. Pan: Aaiam 5076B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ‘the CIT(A), NFAC / Delhi dated 15.07.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2016-17, confirming the assessment under section

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—1, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 14.02.2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—1, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 14.02.2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—1, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 14.02.2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—1, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) dated 14.02.2018 for the assessment years (AY) 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the principle is equally applicable to all banks/commercial banks, to which Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 4. In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter, the issue is well settled. Accordingly, the Board has decided that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers