KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19-05-2021 wherein addition u/s 69C of the Act was made on account of treating the certain expenses as bogus/unexplained in nature. 2 Kerala Shipping and Inalnd Navigtation Corporation 4. Subsequently the learned PCIT from the assessment record noticed that assessee has declared interest income of Rs. 80,70

THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee sands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chinnakada, Kollam 691001 [Pan: Aaaat4088L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A District Co- Operative Bank Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Lending Money To Its Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,14,89,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The 2 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 26,20,34,663/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances/Additions: -

70,312/- by holding that in respect of certain branches the population is more than 10,000 and, therefore, these branches cannot be classified as rural branches. iii) Disallowance expenditure of Rs. 34,22,758/- for failure of the assessee bank to deduct tax at source. iv) Disallowance of claim of deduction of interest on OTS Scheme

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

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

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 is Rs.27,26,70,775/-. The interest debited to the P&L account is Rs.1,62,64,216/-. Proportionate interest is disallowed on account of diversion

SREEDHARAN NAIR BABU,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD -1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreedharan Nair Babu The Income Tax Officer 42/1975, Madhusree Non Corporate Ward – 1(1) P J Antony Ground Road Vs. C.R. Building Pachalam, Ernakulam 682012 I.S. Press Road [Pan:Ajtpb 4145M] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Dismissal Of His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 07.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Vide Its Order Dated 06.09.2022. 2. It Would Be Relevant To State The Background Facts Of The Case. The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession, Based At Ernakulam. For The Relevant Year He Returned His Income On 05.01.2016 At Rs.5,35,200, Which Was On Account Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account During The Year, Subject To Verification Under The Act. The Assessee Having Returned Income @ 35% Of The Disclosed Professional Receipt Of Rs.24,62,600, As Against The Cash Deposit Of Rs.67,03,100 In His Bank Account, The Ao Applied The Said Profit Rate On The Balance Rs.42,40,500, Making Thus An Addition For

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 07.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide its order dated 06.09.2022. 2. It would be relevant to state the background facts of the case. The assessee is an Advocate by profession, based at Ernakulam

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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