M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

5 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s. 153A(a) of the Act consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Act for all the assessment years as under: Assessment Year Date of filing of ROI 2006-07 06/07/2012

M/S.MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,COCHIN vs. THE DY DIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

11 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the assessee. 4.4 Lastly, according to us, The Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in invoking section 263 since the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the return of income, the assessee had declared total income at Nil. Even

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

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, 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.,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

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

disallowance. However, the assessee claimed that they can claim depreciation as application of income upto and including the assessment year 2014-15 on the basis of section 11(6) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 01-04-2015 which was not acceptable by the CIT(E). Before the CIT(E), the assessee placed reliance on section 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

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