KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

199 r.w.r. 37BA of the Rules, the credit of TDS can be claimed only in the year to which the corresponding income is taxable. The amount of TDS on corresponding interest income of Rs. 64,17,463/-belong to assessment year 2017-18 whereas TDS was claimed in the year under consideration which was allowed by the AO without conducting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

disallowance of exemption against accumulation of income under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, all the grounds are taken together. The appellant through an application in Form 10 submitted before the assessing authority with respect to the assessment year 2018-19, pursuant to a resolution passed by the trustees, has sought for accumulation

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

disallowances, which was made\nin the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act\ndated 20.03.2015.\n6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\ndismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the\nassessment made pursuant to notice u/s. 153A of the Act.\n7. Being aggrieved, the appellant

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

PUNNAYURKULAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO P 417,PUNNAYURKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Punnayurkulam Service Cooperative .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No. P417, Punnayurkulam, Thrissur. [Pan: Aacap 6129 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1, Thrissur. Appellant By: Shri Ramdas M, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Its Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2023-24 Was Filed On 31/12/2020 Declaring Nil Income After

section 80AC of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who while confirming the disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80P, however, deleted the addition made on account of adding back of the provisions. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala