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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. Hence, it was submitted that the provisions of sub-section

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. Hence, it was submitted that the provisions of sub-section

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. Hence, it was submitted that the provisions of sub-section

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs.18,43,500/-. I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. Hence, it was submitted that the provisions of sub-section

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand, and the ground of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We accordingly find no merit in the ground of the Revenue on this issue as well.” The issues raised by the AO in his order are materially identical to that

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand, and the ground of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We accordingly find no merit in the ground of the Revenue on this issue as well.” The issues raised by the AO in his order are materially identical to that

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

disallowing the interest paid to members u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating that the tax is not required to be deducted u/s 194A of the Act if the interest is paid to members of the co- operative society.” 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing objection to the assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim

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.

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12

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

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) being employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI even though same were not deposited in respective fund within stipulated time – Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178/ [2023] 290 Taxman 19/[2022] 448 ITR 518/2022 SCC Online Sc 1423, held that non obstante clause

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

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

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D and made disallowance of expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,83,55,106/- which stood added to the income of the assesse vide assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2010-11, the working of which is as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with