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

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

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)

section 11 of the Act cannot be extended to the assessee. Hence, the AO disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 50 Lakh to the total income of the assessee. 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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