THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN A, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

depositing in the Bank account. Hence, she submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer may be confirmed. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that for assessment year 2012-13, the entire amounts were withdrawals from Bank account and utilized for construction of Bar at Thodupuzha which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, cash I.T.A. Nos.559-561/Coch/2018 withdrawals were taken

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. PVT. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

disallowance of Rs. 7,97,923/- U/s. 14A of the Act and also made an addition of Rs. 4,98,500/- being the cash deposits

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

SRI. MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, NON-CORPORATE, WD-1(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

cash- credits and confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the assessee had not been able to explain the sources for Rs.3 lakhs out of Rs.49,22,000/- deposited in various Bank accounts. In view of the unsatisfactory

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

cash diverted by the assessee without any benefit to it. Therefore, so long as the assessee is not the beneficiary of the investments made by the partners, their relatives and the sister concerns and so long as the advances are interest free, the Assessing Officer is perfectly justified in disallowing the interest in proportion to the advances made. There