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

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

Section 260A of the Act and the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.” Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court we confirm the disallowances

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

260A of the Income Tax Act is as to whether the appellant Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, duly constituted in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'KIID Act', is eligible for exemption under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act or whether in terms

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

260A of the Income Tax Act is as to whether the appellant Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, duly constituted in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'KIID Act', is eligible for exemption under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act or whether in terms

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)

260A of the Act. Section 244A(3) makes it clear that the same envisages an order for the relevant year, i.e., of the refund. The order by the Hon'ble High Court in the instant case is under it’s appellate jurisdiction, invoked by the assessee in respect of its assessment of AY 2004-05. The same stands disallowed

COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY ( FORMERLY COCHIN PORT TRUST),KOCHI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section 36(1)(va) of the Act; (b) Provision for bad and doubtful debts, at Rs.1,55,57,493 as against the correct amount of Rs.1,70,27,053, resulting in a short disallowance to the extent of the difference of Rs.14.70 lakhs; (c) Short deduction of tax at source on Rs.4,09,20,538. Cochin Port Authority

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. ABAD EXIM PRIVATE LTD, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

260A of the I.T.Act to the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The Hon’ble High Court by judgment dated 07.08.2018 directed the Tribunal to consider the following issues, namely – (i) Deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act (ii) Claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act Deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act 2. The claim of deduction u/s 80HHC was disallowed

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm &

section 56. (i) Own Fund Long Term Loan - 70,60,773/- (ii) Own Fund Short Term Loan - 1,31,80,270/- at 12.5% to 14% (iii)Gold Loans - 23,64,719/- at 13% (iv) Housing Loans - 8,94,833/- at 12% (v) Ordinary Loan - 42,86,229/- at 15.5% (vi) Trade Loan - 1,58,258/- at 13% (vii) Housing Repair

THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm &

section 56. (i) Own Fund Long Term Loan - 70,60,773/- (ii) Own Fund Short Term Loan - 1,31,80,270/- at 12.5% to 14% (iii)Gold Loans - 23,64,719/- at 13% (iv) Housing Loans - 8,94,833/- at 12% (v) Ordinary Loan - 42,86,229/- at 15.5% (vi) Trade Loan - 1,58,258/- at 13% (vii) Housing Repair