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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

disallowing the MAT credit granted vide order dated 24/12/2010, the rectification order was passed on 11/02/2019 in the present case, which is beyond the statutory limitation period of 4 years. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the impugned order. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. issues considered by the Tribunal, and which are not impugned in these appeals, shall be treated as finally decided by the common order of the appellate tribunal impugned in these appeals.” It is in this factual background that we are now adjudicating upon the assessee’s instant identical sole substantial grievance claiming depreciation

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. issues considered by the Tribunal, and which are not impugned in these appeals, shall be treated as finally decided by the common order of the appellate tribunal impugned in these appeals.” It is in this factual background that we are now adjudicating upon the assessee’s instant identical sole substantial grievance claiming depreciation

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. issues considered by the Tribunal, and which are not impugned in these appeals, shall be treated as finally decided by the common order of the appellate tribunal impugned in these appeals.” It is in this factual background that we are now adjudicating upon the assessee’s instant identical sole substantial grievance claiming depreciation

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. issues considered by the Tribunal, and which are not impugned in these appeals, shall be treated as finally decided by the common order of the appellate tribunal impugned in these appeals.” It is in this factual background that we are now adjudicating upon the assessee’s instant identical sole substantial grievance claiming depreciation

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

255 CTR 222\n(Kerala)[22-08-2012] and Mrs. Meera Jacob vs. Income-tax Officer\n[2009] 313 ITR 411 (Kerala) [09-06-2008]. On perusal of the\naforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court we find that it\nhas been held by the Hon'ble High Court that deduction under\nSection 54F of the Act would

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

M/S.THE MUNDAKKAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Mundakkayam Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Ltd. Ward – 2 Mundakkayam Vs. Kottayam Kottayam 686513 [Pan:Aaaat8803H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r/ws. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.9.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), IT Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s Order dated 25.11.2022. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, registered as a primary agricultural credit society (PACS) under the Kerala