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

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

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

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 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 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

disallowing the claim for exemption of capital gains on sale of agricultural land in survey No. 143/34, Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the appellant received a total consideration of Rs. 5,09,24,950/- on sale of following agricultural

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

iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) Disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

iii) Thirdly, the gross total income must include income that is referred to in sub-section (2).(iv) Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) speaks of a co-operative society being "engaged in", inter alia, carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members.(v) Fifthly, the burden is on the assessee to show, by adducing

THE THRIKKOVIL VATTOM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

iii) Thirdly, the gross total income must include income that is referred to in sub-section (2). iv) Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) speaks of a co-operative society being “engaged in”, inter alia, carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. v) Fifthly, the burden is on the assessee to show, by adducing

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from M/s. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs. Rs.12,75,20,483/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

KANNUR TOWN SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkannur Town Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer-1 Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kannur 670002 Kannothumchal [Pan: Aabak8385N] Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

CLAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALTD.,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Clappana Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited No.867 V. Ward 1, Alappuzha. Cp/Viii/410 & 411, Clappana Po Karunagappally, Kollam – 690 525 Pan : Aabac2747A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055921666(1) Dated 11.09.2023, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from a district co-operative bank amounting to Rs.57,15,277/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per 2 Clappana SCB Ltd. the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

KANNUR DISTRICT EX SERVICEMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2016-2017 Kannur District Ex-Servicemen Multipurpose V. The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Society Limited, Ward 1 & Tps Payangadi Rs Kannur. Kannur 670 303. Pan : Aaaak8922A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri George Thomas, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal, Ita.No.432/Coch/2023, For Assessment Year 2016-2017, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051675600(1) Dated 30.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

M/S.PUTHIYANGADI SERVICE CO-OP BANK,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Puthiyangadi Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Limited No.F1421 V. Ward 1(3), Alappuzha. Puthiyangadi Kozhikode – 673 021 Pan : Aacap0749C. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.43,81,435/-. The Revenue 2 Puthiyangadi SCB Ltd. further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank