KALLUMALA AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO HW 14,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction U/s. 80P of the Act for only non-filing of the income. It was further submitted that to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. However, the AO had Kallumala Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ITO proceeded with levy of penalty by holding that the assessment proceedings and the penalty

KALLUMALA AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO HW 14,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing the claim for deduction U/s. 80P of the Act for only non-filing of the income. It was further submitted that to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. However, the AO had Kallumala Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ITO proceeded with levy of penalty by holding that the assessment proceedings and the penalty

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of order 26/06/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 27/03/2022. 2 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar 2. The brief facts

ESATTO BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 30.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012- 13. The assessee has also filed a Stay Application (SA) qua it’s instant appeal. 2. At the outset Shri Mathew, the learned counsel for the assessee, would, in pursuance of Ground No. 7.1 of it’s Grounds of Appeal (GoA), submit that

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD ,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198(1) 3 256/Coch/2021 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291223(1) 4. 257/Coch/2021 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291249(1) Heard both the parties. Case file perused

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 30/06/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, the “Ld.AO”) passed u/s. 144of the Act, date of order 12/12/2019. 2 Kanichukulangara Service Co-opeative Bank Limited 2. The brief facts

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 state as follows with regard to the reasons for the amendment effected in Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2010: “17. Special deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to National Housing Bank