THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A Cochin International Airport Ltd. read with Rule Rule 8D. The decisions of the Kolkata and Chennai Benches of the ITAT in the cases of ITO vs. Narain Prasad Dalmia: ITA No. 1180/K/2011 for the AY 2008-09 and ACIT v. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd. ITA No.1603/Mds/2012 for the AY 2009-10 too are applicable. fff) On the debate

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

disallowance under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act of Rs.4,33,252/- for non-remittance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI within the due date as per the respective Act. This has been upheld by the learned CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) on this aspect is correct in view of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgement

M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

disallowable without giving any reference to the applicability of Section 36 (1) ( iii) as claimed by the assessee. It was submitted that as the claim of the assessee that the expenditure was allowable u/s 36 (1)(iii) was rejected by the Pr. CIT, the order u/s. 263 is to be set aside as held by the Supreme Court

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the claim of provisions on standard assets and confined its provisions only to an extent of bad and doubtful debts on the Page 6 of 9 non-performing assets. Hence there is no error in the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 6. Section 263 is to be invoked when the twin conditions of order being erroneous

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

119 of the Act, in supersession of earlier instructions/ guidelines on this subject, ere by directs that the cases selected for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-20 5 under CASS, on the basis of either AIR data or CIB information or for non re-conciliation with 26AS data, the scope of enquiry should be limited to verification these particular

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby order that the limitation of six months for making the investment u/s. 54EC of capital gains arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset is extended- upto 30th September, 2006 in case of persons where the long- (i) term capital asset was transferred between 29.09.2005 and 31.12.2005 (both dates inclusive

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

119 (Kerala) which deals with the issue of disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution as per Section

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT WARD-2, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119

THOMAS CHACKO,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT KOCHI CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119

SRI.THOMAS CHACKO PROPRIETOR OF GROUP MUKKADAN,KCOHI vs. ACIT , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80JJAA deduction(s) involving varying sums disallowed by the Assessing Officer, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, as under: - “4.3 In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant furnished his return of income on 30.12.2020 against the extended due date of 15.02.2021 with gross total income at Rs. 2,31,31,119

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors. Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee

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.

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous and be revised accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 2.3.2022 (pg. 45 to 51 of PB) where

ANGAMALY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 714,ANGAMALY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, ALUVA, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.714, Angamaly So Vs. Ernakulam Ito Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 683 572 Aluva Pan No : Aacaa1050B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 21.6.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065923392(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Angamaly Page 2 Of 6

disallowing deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not file the return of income within the due date which is specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. The AO accordingly, computed the total income at Rs. 91,23,250/- and raised demand

KERALA UNIVERSITY STAFF HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Kerala University Staff Housing .......... Appellant Co-Opertive Society Ltd. University Campus Senat House Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram 695033 [Pan: Aajak0089P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram

disallowing the deduction calmed placing reliance on the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana

ELANTHOOR SERVICE CO OPER BANK LIMITED,ELANTHOOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NORTH BLOCK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Elanthoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Elanthoor P.O., Pathanamthitta 689643 [Pan: Aaaae1867C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thiruvalla Appellant By: Shri T.T. Biju, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act by virtue of section 80AC is arbitrary and illegal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submitted that the learned CIT, (Hqrs.) (Tech) u/s. 119

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

119 of 2015 dated 19/09/2014 wherein it was held as follows: “3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Honourable supreme Court would definitely indicate that clause (v) of sub- Section (2) of Section 36 is not applicable for a claim raised under clause (viia) of section 36(1). However, it is submitted that