INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further, the AO made addition of Rs.13,47

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

TDS U/s 194C of the Act aggregating amount to Rs. 2,47,67,931/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) allowed relief related addition U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act but related to claim of deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act the Kannur Building Materials

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

section 43A of the Act, it is claimed that the amount of loss debited to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year 2012-13 is reversed by crediting to Profit & Loss A/c. for the assessment year under consideration. This amount was claimed as deduction while computing taxable income. The AO, placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction u/s 80P of the Act was disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

47,888/- the assessee submitted because of the merger and the technical error in the system they are not able to get the details. The AO proposed to disallow 30% of the interest payments u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similarly, the AO had proposed to disallow the claim made u/s. 36(1)(viia

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

47,597/-, as per details provided by the employer in Form 16 dated 30/04/2011. This return has been initially processed u/s 143(1) and notice Page 2 of 7 u/s 143(2) dated 7/8/2012 was issued for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that the previous employer M/s. HDFC Bank Limited had deducted

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

47,572/- including Land advance of Rs.1,91,10,000/-. Out of these loans/advances, except Rs.44,22,512/- (Royalty Advance, L&T Finance Ltd. (TDS), Reliance – TDS, Petromee Engineers, input tax credit, Standard electricals), others amounting Rs.6,94,25,060/- cannot be treated as made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The loan liability as per Balance sheet

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHELEMBRA BRANCH,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHOONDAL BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THRISSUR RO BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THRISSUR RO BRANCH,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea

KERALA GRAMIN BANK, CHENGOTTUKAVU BRANCH,KOYILANDY vs. THE ITO WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

section 200A of the I.T.Act is prospective with effect from 01.06.2016. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the ITA No.684/Bang/2022 & Ors. 8 M/s.Kerala Gramin Bank. judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, cited supra, we allow the claim of the assessee. 9.4 Before concluding, it is to be mentioned that the CIT(A) rejected the plea