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 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income 133

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 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income 133

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 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income 133

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 9-7-2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court.* - *5. The Full Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

133/-, As per the A.O. since the cause of disallowance constituted concealment of particulars of income proceedings u/s. 271 rws 274 of the I. T. Act was initiated by by issue of notice dated 20.12.2016. In response the appellant submitted that the trust is eligible for exemption under section

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowing the payment of interest on loans taken during the year to prove that the payer is liable to deduct tax-under section 194A. I.T.A. No.68 /Coch/2018 5.2 It was submitted that the liability to deduct tax at source under section 194A arises only when the individual payer is liable to get the books of accounts audited under section 44AB

THE MAHADEVIKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 5 , ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the assessee's claim under section 80P by wrongly holding that the assessee had not filed any return of income for the year. 5. The CIT[A] should have considered the return of income filed by the assessee and granted the deduction under section 80P as claimed in the return. 5. The CIT[A] should have noted that

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The language of the Section does not warrant an interpretation that it is attracted only if the interest remains payable on the last day of the financial year. If this contention

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The language of the Section does not warrant an interpretation that it is attracted only if the interest remains payable on the last day of the financial year. If this contention

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowance is attracted when an individual, who is liable to deduct tax on any interest payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source, commits default. The language of the Section does not warrant an interpretation that it is attracted only if the interest remains payable on the last day of the financial year. If this contention

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

133(6) to the said creditor, no confirmation was received. The assessee also failed to produce any evidence regarding the claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,77,949 while computing long-term capital gains on sale of land. In the absence of any corroborative material, both the AO and the CIT(A) were justified in making/sustaining the additions. Even

COCHIN REFINERIES LIMITED STAFF PROVIDENT FUND,AMBALAMUGHAL vs. ACIT , KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cochin Refineries Limited Staff Vs. Acit, Provident Fund, Exemption Circle, Kochi Refinery P. B. No.2, Kochi. Ambalamugal – 682 302, Kerala. Pan : Aaatc 1545 Q Appellant Respondent

disallowing by AO, the amount of Rs.18.90,133/-being redemption loss which is not contingent in nature. This statement by the Learned CIT(A) is factually incorrect. Only the ground no.3 is related to treating the redemption loss as contingent in nature (which was not disposed off by the CIT (A)) and ground 1&2 related to treating the appellant

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed u/S.40(a)(iib) of the IT Act in the computation of income from business. 2.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the Electricity Duty under 3(1) of the Kerala Electricity Duty Act, 1963 is payable by every licensee in the State of Kerala and term licensee as defined in Section to Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 133