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

X or Y.\n29. Thirdly, the gross total income must include income that is referred\nto in sub-section (2).\n30. Fourthly, sub-clause (2)(a)(i) with which we are directly concerned,\nthen speaks of a co-operative society being \"engaged in\" carrying on the\nbusiness of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. What\nis important

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

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 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 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

THE TIRURANGADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TIRURANGADI vs. ITO, WARD-3, TIRUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s sec.80P deduction claim of Rs.43,91,161/-; in the course of assessment dated 21.12.2016; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion as follows : 3 Tirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 4 Tirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 5 Tirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 3. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground

KALADY KANJOOR RURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowing the impugned claim, the assessee concerned must be proved to be in banking business with general public as per the corresponding provisions in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as under : “14. We shall now analyse the aforesaid judgments in a common conspectus. 14.1. In Apex Co-operative Bank of Urban Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd., it was categorically

THE KAREEPPA PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.D,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance for non-deduction of TDS payments made to non-members. 3. The Revenue vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the assessee viz., Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. is in fact a cooperative bank covered u/sec.80P(4) of the Act than a cooperative credit society eligible for the impugned detailed discussion u/sec.80P(2

RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, 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 2017-18 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the impugned claim, the assessee concerned must be proved to be in banking business with general public as per the corresponding provisions in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as under : “14. We shall now analyse the aforesaid judgments in a common conspectus. 14.1. In Apex Co-operative Bank of Urban Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Ltd., it was categorically

CHEERANCHIRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2017-2018

disallowed the assessee’s 2 Cheeranchra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. section 80P 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

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds if the funds

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds if the funds

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds if the funds

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

x. Balarampur Chini Mills Lad v. Dy. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 117 (Trib.) (Kol.) hhh) The Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Lid vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai & Ors (in its decision dated 25.02.2016) observed that the presumption that the investment in tax- free securities is made from the taxpayers own funds if the funds

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

23,08,219 services 13 Provision of corporate information 2,32,10,5456 technology services 14 Investment in equity 50,02,98,250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, AO/NPAC has erred in not appreciating the holistic view that the amount was remitted in the next working day itself, which falls well within the due date

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, AO/NPAC has erred in not appreciating the holistic view that the amount was remitted in the next working day itself, which falls well within the due date

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, AO/NPAC has erred in not appreciating the holistic view that the amount was remitted in the next working day itself, which falls well within the due date

M/S. PARAVUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing the certificate issued by the statutory authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. E. The CIT(Appeal) went wrong in finding that appellant is not eligible for deduction for the interest income received u/s 80P(2)(d) . The issues covered in favour of the appellant of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Principal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM vs. CHRIST EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Ito Kuzhoor Ernakulam Kerala 683541 Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Co No.22/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Kuzhoor Ito Kerala 683541 Ernakulam Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. Lokanathan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 & 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059567754(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection Against The Said

x 50%) and accordingly, assessed on a total income of Rs. 3,57,57,747/- [Rs. 6,26,618 + Rs. 36,08,077 + Rs. 3,15,23,052]. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act, dated 27.12.2018, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Before