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).

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Suffice to say, we find during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from a district co-operative bank amounting to Rs.57

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

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 Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act): - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 842/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056918954(1) 2 843/Coch/2023 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056919408(1) 3 844/Coch/2023 2020-21 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056920417(1) The Kadanad SCB Limited. Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceed

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI, KOTTAYAM

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 Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act): - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 842/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056918954(1) 2 843/Coch/2023 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056919408(1) 3 844/Coch/2023 2020-21 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056920417(1) The Kadanad SCB Limited. Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceed

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAPPALLY vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, KOTTAYAM

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 Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act): - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 842/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056918954(1) 2 843/Coch/2023 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056919408(1) 3 844/Coch/2023 2020-21 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 10.10.2023 24/1056920417(1) The Kadanad SCB Limited. Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. Suffice to say that we find during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 290/Coch/2023 2007-08 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 27.03.2023 23/1051368456(1) 2 291/Coch/2023 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 28.03.2023 23/1051481740(1) 3 292/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 29.03.2023 23/1051604022(1) Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 290/Coch/2023 2007-08 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 27.03.2023 23/1051368456(1) 2 291/Coch/2023 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 28.03.2023 23/1051481740(1) 3 292/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 29.03.2023 23/1051604022(1) Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 290/Coch/2023 2007-08 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 27.03.2023 23/1051368456(1) 2 291/Coch/2023 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 28.03.2023 23/1051481740(1) 3 292/Coch/2023 2014-15 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 29.03.2023 23/1051604022(1) Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 Kareeppa Panchayat Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. \ 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the sole substantive issue which arises for our apt adjudication is that of correctness of both the learned lower authorities

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities action disallowing sec.80P deduction claim, the Revenue first of all submits that

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Suffice to say that we find during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s 2 Cheeranchra Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. section 80P deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) . Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have disallowed the Kottayam SCB Ltd. assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim(s) herein thereby treating it as a cooperative bank than a cooperative society

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) . Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have disallowed the Kottayam SCB Ltd. assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim(s) herein thereby treating it as a cooperative bank than a cooperative society

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2 Tirurangadi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities action disallowing it’s sec.80P deduction claim of Rs.43,91,161/-; in the course of assessment dated

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

250 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act']\nwhereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeal preferred by the\nAssessee against the Assessment Order, dated 21/12/2018, passed\nunder Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.\nITA No.569/COCH/2025\nWe would first take up ITA No.569/COCH/2025 which is\naccompanied by application seeking condonation

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

disallowance\nclaim u/s. 80P. However, as regards cash deposits, the CIT(A) had\nremitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the\nappeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this\nTribunal in the present appeal.\n7.\nAt the outset we find that there

KOCHIN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,KOCHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(4) &TPS, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kochin Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Vii/1832, Lalan Road, Mattancherry Kochi 682002 [Pan: Aabak1735C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2(4) & Tps, Kochi Appellant By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kamath, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit. Dr & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.04.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The relevant Assessment Year is (AY) 2014-15. 2. The solitary issue argued by the learned A.R. was whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming AO’s action in denying the claim of 2 Kochin Co-operative Society Ltd. deduction u/s. 80P of the Act for the reason that

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained. The NFAC held that since the appellant had not filed the return