M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

5) Taxability of miscellaneous income 6) Disallowance of foreign agents commission and expense reimbursement for non deduction of tax. 14.1 In I.T.A. No.164/Coch/2017, the following issues are raised: i) Disallowance of claim under section 10

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

5) Taxability of miscellaneous income 6) Disallowance of foreign agents commission and expense reimbursement for non deduction of tax. 14.1 In I.T.A. No.164/Coch/2017, the following issues are raised: i) Disallowance of claim under section 10

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

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

5) Taxability of miscellaneous income 6) Disallowance of foreign agents commission and expense reimbursement for non deduction of tax. 14.1 In I.T.A. No.164/Coch/2017, the following issues are raised: i) Disallowance of claim under section 10

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

5) Taxability of miscellaneous income 6) Disallowance of foreign agents commission and expense reimbursement for non deduction of tax. 14.1 In I.T.A. No.164/Coch/2017, the following issues are raised: i) Disallowance of claim under section 10

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

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

5) Taxability of miscellaneous income 6) Disallowance of foreign agents commission and expense reimbursement for non deduction of tax. 14.1 In I.T.A. No.164/Coch/2017, the following issues are raised: i) Disallowance of claim under section 10

SRI.KRISHNAN ACHARY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K.

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s. 10(10C) of the I.T. Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2008-09, the return of income was filed on 29/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs.3,03,310/-. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

TAVINJAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, WAYANAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthavinjal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Thalapuzha P.O. Ward - 1(4), Kalpetyta Vs Wayanad 670664 Wayanad 673122 [Pan: Aadat2035N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim. 3. We find that there is no such condition in section 80A(5) regarding compliance of section 139(1)’s “due” date as the relevant condition stipulates to this effect came u/s.80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and afterwards. So far as the Revenue’s claim that section 80P(5) bars section 80P deduction in a belated

M/S. ASPINWALL & CO. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

disallowance of expenditure under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, these grounds do not arise out of the order of the CIT. We, therefore, dismiss the same. 5. Now coming to ground Nos. 1 to 3. The only issue involved before us is whether the order passed by the CIT under section 263 is valid and is erroneous

M/S POYILOOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , 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 - 2014-15 Poyiloor Service Co-Op.Bank The Income Tax Officer-2, Kannothumchal Ltd., Poyiloor Post, Kannur. Vs. Pin – 670002 Pan Aacap8990R Kannur - 670 006 (Respondent) (Appellant)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(4) deduction. 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

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing the interest paid to members u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating that the tax is not required to be deducted u/s 194A of the Act if the interest is paid to members of the co- operative society.” 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing objection to the assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim

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 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

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)

5 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments with any other Co-operative Society. The source of interest income is from Bank and Treasury, interest income received from Treasury be included in the computation

CLAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALTD.,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, 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: 2017-2018 M/S. Clappana Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited No.867 V. Ward 1, Alappuzha. Cp/Viii/410 & 411, Clappana Po Karunagappally, Kollam – 690 525 Pan : Aabac2747A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055921666(1) Dated 11.09.2023, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from a district co-operative bank amounting to Rs.57,15,277/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per 2 Clappana SCB Ltd. the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

M/S.PUTHIYANGADI SERVICE CO-OP BANK,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), CALICUT

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 M/S. Puthiyangadi Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Limited No.F1421 V. Ward 1(3), Alappuzha. Puthiyangadi Kozhikode – 673 021 Pan : Aacap0749C. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.43,81,435/-. The Revenue 2 Puthiyangadi SCB Ltd. 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

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

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 Singh

10 of the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951, which shall be known as Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited i.e. the appellant herein. Thus, from a conjoint reading of all the relevant statutory as alluded to hereinabove, it is quite clear that the appellant is not a co- operative bank within the meaning

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI, KOTTAYAM

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 Singh

10 of the Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951, which shall be known as Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited i.e. the appellant herein. Thus, from a conjoint reading of all the relevant statutory as alluded to hereinabove, it is quite clear that the appellant is not a co- operative bank within the meaning