PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM, WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits

M/S THE PANNIYANKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE 1, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80P. The assessed income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is Rs.1,48,86,392. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has come to light that there were violation of section 269SS and the assessing officer referred the case for initiation of penalty u/s.271D on 01.01.2018. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s.271D was initiated on 03.01.2018. Thereafter

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD.,WAYANAD vs. JCIT RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). While matter stood thus, the AO noticed that assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act by accepting cash deposits

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All\ncash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained.\nThe NFAC held that since the appellant had not filed the return of\nincome. In the absence of claim in the return of income deduction\nu/s. 80P cannot be allowed. Accordingly, confirmed he disallowance

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained. The NFAC held that since the appellant had not filed the return of income. In the absence of claim in the return of income deduction u/s. 80P cannot be allowed. Accordingly, confirmed he disallowance

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained. The NFAC held that since the appellant had not filed the return of income. In the absence of claim in the return of income deduction u/s. 80P cannot be allowed. Accordingly, confirmed he disallowance

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

cash deposits and other deposits 2 Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P 25,88,593 of the Act 3 Unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM vs. SUNITHA MENON, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance." 8.1.6 The addition has been made by the A.O. as unexplained investment has been carefully examined. Based on the various judicial pronouncements as quoted above and the facts of the appellant's case also being similar, I am of the view that the conditions to invoke provisions u/s. 68/69A are not prevailing in this case. Once cash deposits

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposited cash and not the assessee. As the burden of proof stands discharged by the assessee, on the substantial grounds on merits, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed this ground of Appeal. 6.1 With regard to disallowance

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

deposited cash and not the assessee. As the burden of proof stands discharged by the assessee, on the substantial grounds on merits, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed this ground of Appeal. 6.1 With regard to disallowance

JOY THOMAS,KURAVILANGADU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

cash deposit placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble coordinate bench in the case of Laigy George Pattanayil v. ITO [2019] 55 CCH 0093. As regards to the disallowance

KINGSTAR ENTERPRISES,PERUBAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowing 5% of the total cost of purchase by holding that the assessee purchased rubber from unregistered dealer, i.e., agriculturists. The A.O. also made an addition of Rs.11,50,000 for alleged failure of the assessee to explain cash deposits

RANNI SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 65,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranni Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Ranni P.O., Pathanamthitta 689272 [Pan: Aacar8865P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljit P.J., Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2025 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 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 26.01.2018 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P

cash deposit. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned lower authorities had clearly fell in error in disallowing

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cgr Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [Pan: Aaccc4855G] Vs. Dcit, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Engaged In The Business Of Refining Precious Metals & Minting Of Coins & Bars. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

Disallowance of cash deposits Rs. 1,99,800/- 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

SAJU ETTUNGAL PAPPU ,CHOWARA,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

deposits represent his business sale only. He has further filed record of cash balance in his hand during the relevant previous year and before the demonetisation period. The Revenue, on the other hand, draws strong support from both the lower authorities action making the impugned addition not only on the ground that the assessee could have accepted the cash

EDAMALAYAR SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IX 103A,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 AND TPS , THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

cash deposits were made out of the business receipts of the appellant-society. However, made certain disallowances and assessed the income

GRETTA JOFFY,CHITTATTUKARA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gretta Joffy .......... Appellant Vadukkoot Kooriyal House, Elavally Chittattukara, Thrissur 680511 [Pan: Avwpg3387P] Vs. Ito, Ward -1 & Tps, Guruvayoor .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Preetha Shenoy, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Carrying On The Business Of Running Petrol Pump Under The Name & Style Of “Koorial Fuels”. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 15.01.2018 Calling Upon The Appellant To File The Return Of Income. In Response To The Notice U/S. 142(1), The Appellant Filed Return Of Income Disclosing

disallowed 50% of the expenditure claimed from the business by holding that the profit declared is lower compared to the industrial standards. The AO also made addition of Rs. 10,56,000/- being the cash deposits