THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

57 meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 80P and therefore, would not be eligible to the benefit of deduction as provided therein. 15.4. Having regard to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80P, it is necessary to consider Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949 which states that the said Act shall apply to co-operative societies

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

57,670/-. The return of income was revised on 31.03.2015 declaring income of Rs. 223,80,75,265/- and book profit u/s. 115JB of Rs. 410,09,91,004/-. The assessee company also reported the following international transactions in Form 3CEB: - S.No. Description of Transaction Amount 1 Sale of tyres 4,89,75,09,019 2 Sale of semi finished

IFTHIKAR KARUPPAMVEETIL ABDUL RAHMAN,CHAVAKKAD vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

57(iii) of the Act. 5 ITA.No.119/COCH./2024 H. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in hand written the DIN number and not quoting a valid computer-generated DIN on the body of the Assessment Order dated 21.12.2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144C

COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY ( FORMERLY COCHIN PORT TRUST),KOCHI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section 36(1)(va) of the Act; (b) Provision for bad and doubtful debts, at Rs.1,55,57,493 as against the correct amount of Rs.1,70,27,053, resulting in a short disallowance to the extent of the difference of Rs.14.70 lakhs; (c) Short deduction of tax at source on Rs.4,09,20,538. Cochin Port Authority

PARAMBATHKANDI MOHAMMED RAFEEK MOHAMED,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CPC(TDS), UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm

TDS was filed belatedly. No doubt, the late fee was levied for the period prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act, which came into effect on 01.06.2015 enabling levy of late fee by the CPC. No doubt, it is true that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) took

PARAMBATHKANDI MOHAMMED RAFEEK MOHAMED,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm

TDS was filed belatedly. No doubt, the late fee was levied for the period prior to the amendment to section 200A of the Act, which came into effect on 01.06.2015 enabling levy of late fee by the CPC. No doubt, it is true that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) took

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

sections 12AA and 10(23C) (vi). 3. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in rejecting the prayer u/s. 10(23C) (iii ad) stating that " There are no documents on record to show that during the financial year under consideration, the assessee trust existed solely for educational propose and not for purposes of profit and that the aggregate annual receipts

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

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, THONDIYIL BRANCH,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KANNUR, KANNUR

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, 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, CHOKKAD 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, 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, 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