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\nIncome-tax Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration\ncertificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees\nare primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to\na reference order dated 9-7-2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High\nCourt.\n5. The Full Bench

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act but remitted before the due date of filing the return has to be allowed under Sect/on 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961. f) It is submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act which is the basis for initiation

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

2(24(x) of the Act. 7. The assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act and the lower authorities have allowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Therefore Circular No. 37/2016 dated 2nd November, 2016 issued by CBDT will be squarely applicable in the assessee’s case and according to the above circular

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

KAVUNGAL VAREED ITTEERA,KERALA vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance since the contribution to PF & ESI was made before the due date of filing the return. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has considered the issue of whether the employees contribution paid before

ANDIAN KANDY RATHEESH,CALICUT vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuandian Kandy Rateesh The Income Tax Officer 2.2171 A 1, Swastik Circle - 1(1), Tps Vs. Near Civil Station Road Kozhikode Calicut 673020 Pan – Acspr7919M Appellant Respondent

disallowed as sum of Rs.1,82,654/- being employees contribution to PF amounting to Rs.1,58,256/- and employees contribution to ESI of Rs.24,389/- as the assessee failed to deposit the same within due date specified in the respective Acts by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x

WELCARE HOSPITAL, SA ROAD, VYTTILA,VYTTILA vs. ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2018-19

disallowed the contribution of PF paid after the due date. The CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the payment of employee contribution to PF though belated, but was before the due date of fling the return of income

M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

disallowance to the extent of employee’s contribution. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there

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