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

disallowing the claim u/s 80P of the Act? 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in the case Pr. CIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(2022) 442 ITR 141 held by Hon’ble Kerala High Court wherein

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

11\nSCC 287 referred to section 80P of the IT Act and then held:\n\"8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act. Since a\ncooperative society has to be established under the provisions of the\nlaw made by the State Legislature in that regard, the expression\n\"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) must, therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

disallowance of exemption against accumulation of income under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, all the grounds

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11

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.

Section 154 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against facts and law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed in Assessment Year 2014-2015 disallowing the claim for accumulation of income u/s 11

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

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

11 ITA No.476/Coch/2023. The Thrikkovilvattom Panchayath SCB Ltd. section (2) of Section 80P enumerates 56 various kinds of co-operative societies. Sub-section (2)(a)(i) states that if a co-operative society is engaged in carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

11 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice u/S. 263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co- operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on 18 ITA No.478/Coch/2023. Vadakkevila SCB Ltd. the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.” 9. We thus accept the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after