FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. In other words, if the assessee incurs any expenditure for earning tax free income such as interest paid for funds borrowed, for investment in any business

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. In other words, if the assessee incurs any expenditure for earning tax free income such as interest paid for funds borrowed, for investment in any business

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. In other words, if the assessee incurs any expenditure for earning tax free income such as interest paid for funds borrowed, for investment in any business

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. In other words, if the assessee incurs any expenditure for earning tax free income such as interest paid for funds borrowed, for investment in any business

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance. If the appellant had carried on the business and incurred the expenditure, the loss incurred in the business should be allowed to be set off. In the absence of any evidenced to the contrary I hold that the loss from the card division is eligible to be set off against other income

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

Income form Business and Profession”. The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income. Thereafter benefit accruing

M/S. K.K ABRAHAM AND COMPANY,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowing portion of partners remuneration claimed under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,24,216/- respectively. The assessee, in the return of income filed for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 had claimed remuneration to partners by including in the book profit the interest income. The Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated

M/S. K.K ABRAHAM AND COMPANY,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowing portion of partners remuneration claimed under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,24,216/- respectively. The assessee, in the return of income filed for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 had claimed remuneration to partners by including in the book profit the interest income. The Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated

THE VENGINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed on miscellaneous income of Rs.1,49,64,248. Therefore, both these appeals are identical to the appeal of assessee for AY 2018-19 and the arguments of the parties was also the same. 16. On hearing the partis, as decided in ITA No.443/Coch/2024 for AY 2018-19, we direct the assessee to furnish information and the ld. AO similarly

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

business carried illegally, the same is disallowable only in view of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. That is, the same would stand to be disallowed even if the assessee had disclosed the income

ALICE ARUN,CHENGANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance of interest is against the law and hence 1. Rs. 77,36,748 unsustainable. [detailed grounds attached] Total Tax Effect Rs. 77,36,748 2. The assessee is an individual and a partner in M/s. Kannattu Arun Finance. During the assessment year, the assessee filed her return of income and claimed a total loss

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

business income on the ground that this is against sec.2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. The A.O. on that basis denied the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Even though the earlier proceedings for the years were decided in favour of the assessee, the A.O. took a different view and denied

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

business income on the ground that this is against sec.2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. The A.O. on that basis denied the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Even though the earlier proceedings for the years were decided in favour of the assessee, the A.O. took a different view and denied

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

business income on the ground that this is against sec.2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. The A.O. on that basis denied the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Even though the earlier proceedings for the years were decided in favour of the assessee, the A.O. took a different view and denied

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

business income on the ground that this is against sec.2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. The A.O. on that basis denied the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Even though the earlier proceedings for the years were decided in favour of the assessee, the A.O. took a different view and denied

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

business income on the ground that this is against sec.2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. The A.O. on that basis denied the exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Even though the earlier proceedings for the years were decided in favour of the assessee, the A.O. took a different view and denied

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

income from other sources and disallowing the claim u/s 8OP. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have appreciated that the appellant is a PrimaryAgricultural CreditSociety engaged in the business

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

income from other sources and disallowing the claim u/s 8OP. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have appreciated that the appellant is a PrimaryAgricultural CreditSociety engaged in the business