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

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 Income-tax Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 9-7-2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court.* - *5. The Full Bench

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

23,470.00 ii) Donation – Directory Rs. 84,394.00 iii) Donation-Executive Committee Meeting Rs. 1,55,000.00 iv) Donation-Mailing List Rs. 6,250.00 v) Donation-President’s Seal Rs. 13,600.00 v) Life Membership Fee Rs.12,22,125.00 vi) Medicine Premium Collection Rs. 1,51,734.00 vii) SB Interest Rs. 4,489.00 viii) Directory Advertisement

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

23,470.00 ii) Donation – Directory Rs. 84,394.00 iii) Donation-Executive Committee Meeting Rs. 1,55,000.00 iv) Donation-Mailing List Rs. 6,250.00 v) Donation-President’s Seal Rs. 13,600.00 v) Life Membership Fee Rs.12,22,125.00 vi) Medicine Premium Collection Rs. 1,51,734.00 vii) SB Interest Rs. 4,489.00 viii) Directory Advertisement

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added or removed which have been specified under various clauses. None of the clauses require capital gains/losses. The Ld. AR relied

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added or removed which have been specified under various clauses. None of the clauses require capital gains/losses. The Ld. AR relied

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added or removed which have been specified under various clauses. None of the clauses require capital gains/losses. The Ld. AR relied

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallowed while computing the business income under the normal provisions of the Act but no adjustment was made while computing book profits. The Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 115JB, only certain items are to be added or removed which have been specified under various clauses. None of the clauses require capital gains/losses. The Ld. AR relied

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. The assessee must succeed for this reason as well.” 9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 14A of the 1961 Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, as was made by the AO is reproduced as hereunder: “4.3 Accordingly, the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is worked out as under: (i) Direct expenditure relating to exempt income Nil (ii) Interest relating to exempt income