REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

3)", "Section 139(1)", "Section 80IA(4)", "Section 80A(5)", "Section 80AC", "Section 147", "Section 158B", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 143(1)", "Section 44AD", "Section 44AB"], "issues": "Whether a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) can be made for the first time in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, in cases

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA(7), furnishing of the audit report on or before the specified date referred to in section 44AB is mandatory and not directory as argued by the assessee. [Para 32] ■ In this view

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA(7), furnishing of the audit report on or before the specified date referred to in section 44AB is mandatory and not directory as argued by the assessee. [Para 32] ■ In this view

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA(7), furnishing of the audit report on or before the specified date referred to in section 44AB is mandatory and not directory as argued by the assessee. [Para 32] ■ In this view

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

139(1) and further, the said claim should be made in the return furnished. Further, in order to claim deduction under section 80IA(4), as per section 80IA(7), furnishing of the audit report on or before the specified date referred to in section 44AB is mandatory and not directory as argued by the assessee. [Para 32] ■ In this view

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA 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 additional depreciation. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the additional depreciation is a statutory incentive allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) as a one time benefit to encourage industrialization. For this, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA 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 additional depreciation. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the additional depreciation is a statutory incentive allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) as a one time benefit to encourage industrialization. For this, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

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

disallowing chapter VI A deduction of Rs 12,68,076/- since the appellant has filed the return under section 139(4) of the act and made the above claim. 3

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

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

disallowing chapter VI A deduction of Rs 43,17,817/-since the appellant has filed the return under section 139(4) of the act and made the above claim. 3

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 of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

3 The Parakode Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and there was also addition made by CPC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and the total income assessed at Rs.15,16,597/- and raised a demand of Rs.5,09,458/- after giving setoff of loss from the total income. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC assessee filed appeal

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

139(1). Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act is not included in the said sub clause. The amended section 80AC also shows that if the appellant fails to file return on time for the previous year relating to 2018-19, then no deduction is admissible under any provisions of chapter VIA. However there is no corresponding amendment

KADAVATHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIV BANK LTD ,KADAVATHUR vs. ACIT, WARD-2, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowed by the Assessing Officer /CPC on the ground that the assessee has filed the return of income u/s.139(4) of the Act, meaning thereby the 2 ITA No.213/Coch/2024. Kadavathur SCB Limited assessee has filed belated return, and hence, not entitled for the deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, the assessee filed

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 58,00,000/- formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice the appellant submitted that

M/S NADUVANNUR REGIONAL CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals and the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Naduvannur Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Naduvannur P.O., Kozhikode 673614 [Pan: Aaban2276P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(3), Kozhikode

139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) declaring Nil income after claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act of Rs. 42,64,542/-. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode 2 Naduvannur Regional Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter “the AO”) completed the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s

KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - NO: 628,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1, (1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kadukutty Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadukutty P.O., (Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [Pan: Aabak0755A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Yash, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 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 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash In The Bank

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash in the bank 2 Kadukutty Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. account of Rs. 12,03,000/-, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 08.05.2020 after taking prior

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

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

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 559/Coch/2023 for AY2014-15 are stated herein. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 4. 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 regular return of income

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

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

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 559/Coch/2023 for AY2014-15 are stated herein. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 4. 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 regular return of income