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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c) or u/s 36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c) or u/s 36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c) or u/s 36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c) or u/s 36(1) (iii) r.w.s 37 of the Act, from making interest-free advances from out of interest- free funds, if such payments are made towards business purposes and if such payments have been made towards specified intents. yy) The following represent the statutory positions for the impugned A.Y. 2011-12 : (i) Section 14A of the Act provides

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY P. LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

10 of 17 Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4.9 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to compute the benefit as per Rule 8 on the subsidy received towards manufacture of orthodox tea. Accordingly, Ground no. 1 raised by assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground no. 2 relates

RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2017-18 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the impugned claim, the assessee concerned must be proved to be in banking business with general public as per the corresponding provisions in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as under : “14. We shall now analyse the aforesaid judgments in a common conspectus. 14.1. In Apex Co-operative Bank of Urban Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd., it was categorically

THE THRIKKOVIL VATTOM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

KANNUR DISTRICT EX SERVICEMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2016-2017 Kannur District Ex-Servicemen Multipurpose V. The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Society Limited, Ward 1 & Tps Payangadi Rs Kannur. Kannur 670 303. Pan : Aaaak8922A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri George Thomas, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal, Ita.No.432/Coch/2023, For Assessment Year 2016-2017, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051675600(1) Dated 30.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from M/s. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs. Rs.12,75,20,483/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

THE TIRURANGADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TIRURANGADI vs. ITO, WARD-3, TIRUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

23 Tirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, it would be entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 15.11. Looked at from another angle, a co-operative society which is not a state co-operative bank within the meaning of NABARD Act, 1981 would not be a co-operative

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

disallowance for non-deduction of TDS payments made to non-members. 3. The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee viz., Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. is in fact a cooperative bank covered u/sec.80P(4) of the Act than a cooperative credit society eligible for the impugned detailed discussion u/sec.80P

CHEERANCHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2017-2018

disallowed the assessee’s 2 Cheeranchra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. section 80P deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

C. That both the Assessing Officer as well as the 1st Appellant authority had failed to appreciate that, the amendments made to section 40 (a) (ia) by the Finance Act 2010 are curative in nature and was indented to address the concerns of those, assessees who had deposited tax with the government in the subsequent year, though could not deposit