THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

disallowance made by the ld. A.O. on this ground. It is pertinent to point out that the first appellate authority has not decided the section 80P deduction on the merits as to whether the assessee is a Co-operative Bank or a PACS as claimed by the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this\nChapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income', no deduction\nshall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with\ndeductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said\nprovisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

PULPATTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2, TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowed. In appeal, the assessee pressed it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(1) (r.w.s. 80P(2)(a)(i)) on the basis of the decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). The same was found ineligible inasmuch as the assessee had not claimed deduction u/s.80P per it’s return or revised return

M/S.BODYGEAR INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

section 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has 3 ITA No.274/Coch/2023. Bodygear International Pvt.Ltd. confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing

MATHA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,COCHIN vs. THE ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing its section 11 exemption claim in section 143(1)(a)(v) processing since not 2 ITA No. 448 & SA.No.84/Coch/2023 Matha Educational Institutions accompanied by the corresponding tax audit report as prescribed under rule 10B

KURIAKOSE ELIAS CARMEL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

10B, computation, audit reports, case books, ledgers, bank statements, etc. Despite this, the AO held that the total bank deposits of Rs.1,00,74,714 constituted as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act and disallowed

M/S.FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance made by the AO is not Page 2 of 5 correct when the assessee is having a valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act, therefore eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee further contended that the audit report in Form 10B was available as on 15/06/2017. But unfortunately, the assessee had by oversight failed to upload

ALL INDIA SPICES EXPORTERS FORUM,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ERNAKULAM

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

disallowing the claim for accumulation of income u/s 11(2) and 11(5) on the ground that no evidence is filed as per Income Tax Rule 17 before the expiry of time allowed u/s 139(1). As per Section 11(2), as applicable for AY 2014-15 there was no date specified as to the period within which the form

LOKA RAKSHAKA SOCIETY,KOLLAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

10B was filed on 30.10.2023. The CPC, however, passed an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 95,16,957, disallowing

APOLLO TYRES LTD.,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.09.2025

10B(3) of the Rules, 4. Regarding transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3.07.02.519% on Cost-to-Cost Recovery of Salary expenses from AEs a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP grossly erred in not appreciating that the recovery of salary expenses of Rs. 14,38,73,097/- (which was rectified

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTHUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,PERUMANUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

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

disallowance of claim for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the prescribed audit report was not filed before the specified date, i.e. one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The condition of filing of audit repot in the prescribed form, i.e. Form 10B

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,COCHIN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

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

disallowance of claim for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the prescribed audit report was not filed before the specified date, i.e. one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The condition of filing of audit repot in the prescribed form, i.e. Form 10B

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, defining income, makes no exception for a voluntary contribution received toward corpus, so that it is income by definition, though exempt u/s. 11(1)(d)). It is for this reason that capital expenditure is equally an application of income, entitling exemption u/s. 11(1) on income derived from property held under trust (Tiruppani

ST FRANCIS XAVIERS FORANE CHURCH,KANNAMALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 St. Francis Xaviers Forance Church, .......... Appellant Kandakadavu, Andikkadavu (Po), Kannamali, Kochi. [Pan: Aadts 3622 B] Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ernakulam, Kochi .......... Respondent

disallowed. In support of his contention, the following reliance have been placed: (i) M/s. Kalyan Educational Society vs. ACIT [2023 (8) TMI 1336 – ITAT, Kolkata] (ii) M/s. Shree Swami Samarth Seva Kendra vs. ITO [2023 (11) TMI 397 – ITAT, Mumbai] (iii) CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association [2000 (12) TMI 99 – SC] 3 St. Francis Xaviers Forane Church

INCOMETAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), ALAPPUZHA vs. ALLIANCE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, for statistical purpose the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10B filed on 14-11-2018 shall be deemed to have been filed by 31.10.2018 as per CBDT circular dated 27 February, 2019 (File No. 225/15/2019/ITA.II). Considering the above the AO is directed to allow deduction claimed by assessee under section 11. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, for statistical purpose the appeal is treated