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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or that the ground became

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance

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

disallowing deduction claimed by the\nAssessee under 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act reliance was placed upon the\nprovisions contained in Section 80P(4) of the Act and the fact that\nthe Assessee was giving loans to its members/nominal members\nwhich were not related to agriculture. Therefore, the issue that\narises for consideration is whether in the aforesaid facts

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

1. The order of the Assessing Officer is against law and facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in treating the interest received from cooperative banks as 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 ofaccepting deposits from members

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

1. The order of the Assessing Officer is against law and facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in treating the interest received from cooperative banks as 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 ofaccepting deposits from members

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

1. The order of the Assessing Officer is against law and facts. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in treating the interest received from cooperative banks as 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 ofaccepting deposits from members

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have head both the sides on application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Collector of Land Assessment Year 2014-2015 Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 14.02.2017 whereas the due date for filing of the return was 17.10.2016, declaring Nil income. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") assessing the total income at Rs.11

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

1 & 2\nare general in nature. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 challenges the\ndenial of claim for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act for the reasons\nstated by us in the appeal of AY 2012-13 in appeal ITA No.\n267/Coch/2021 wherein we held that the CIT(A) was justified in\ndenying the claim u/s. 80PIA