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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) paid to KSIDC on Term loan taken for setting up of Golf Course and Country Club, which are specific items and have no bearing on the investments made by the Appellant in its sister concerns being Cochin International Aviation Services Limited and Air Kerala International Services Limited totaling Rs.35,31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) paid to KSIDC on Term loan taken for setting up of Golf Course and Country Club, which are specific items and have no bearing on the investments made by the Appellant in its sister concerns being Cochin International Aviation Services Limited and Air Kerala International Services Limited totaling Rs.35,31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) paid to KSIDC on Term loan taken for setting up of Golf Course and Country Club, which are specific items and have no bearing on the investments made by the Appellant in its sister concerns being Cochin International Aviation Services Limited and Air Kerala International Services Limited totaling Rs.35,31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) paid to KSIDC on Term loan taken for setting up of Golf Course and Country Club, which are specific items and have no bearing on the investments made by the Appellant in its sister concerns being Cochin International Aviation Services Limited and Air Kerala International Services Limited totaling Rs.35,31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also

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

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

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional Page

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(2)(b

OTTAPALAM TALUK PRAVASI WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. P.O. Mezhathur, Ottapalam Palakkad 679534 [Pan: Aaao7715K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Palakkd Appellant By: Shri Alan Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and adding back by reversal of various amounts credited to the Profit & Loss A/c on the ground that the return of income was filed belatedly. Even on appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) had confirmed the action of the CPC placing reliance on the provisions of section 80AC

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance by the authorities below is not correct. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee had complied with all the eligibility criteria prescribed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act to claim the said deduction but the said deduction was denied on the technical reason that the Form 10DA was not filed before the due date for filing the return

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

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 2147,KARTHIKAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kumarapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kumarapuram Village, Thamalakkal P.O. Haripad, Alappuzha 690549 [Pan: Aaabk0740M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant could not file the return of income within the prescribed period on account of factors which are beyond the control of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, after making reference

ELOOR VANITHA KSHEMODHARANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL vs. ITO WARD -1 &TPS, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-Op Society Ltd. ......... Appellant Fact Dormetry Room No. 27, Kochi 683501 [Pan: Aaaae8921H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tds, Aluva .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.K. Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. No Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed By The Appellant Society Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Appellant On 30.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148 The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 06.06.2023 Declaring

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s. 148 the appellant filed return of income on 06.06.2023 declaring 2 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-op Society Ltd. total income of Rs. 1250/- after claiming deduction

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

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

PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

119 Taxman 785 (SC) in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. ITO and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 149 ITR 438 in the case of CIT vs. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank and prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders

PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

119 Taxman 785 (SC) in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. ITO and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 149 ITR 438 in the case of CIT vs. Dhar Central Co-operative Bank and prayed to allow the appeal. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

b) The appellant has also raised a ground contesting the action of the AO in not making independent enquiry and ignoring the replies filed by it during the course of assessment proceedings. With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the assessment proceedings were conducted as per the procedure established by law and after giving adequate opportunities

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

b) The appellant has also raised a ground contesting the action of the AO in not making independent enquiry and ignoring the replies filed by it during the course of assessment proceedings. With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the assessment proceedings were conducted as per the procedure established by law and after giving adequate opportunities