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)

270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 preferred

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)

270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 preferred

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)

270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 preferred

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)

270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 preferred

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)

270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2020-21 and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 preferred

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

10% advances made by rural branches and 8.5% for other branches. The assessing officer without considering the submissions had mechanically disallowed the 30% of the interest payments for not deducting the TDS u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had also stated that penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(1) of the Act would be initiated

SAVAN SABEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KALPETTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Savan Sabeer .......... Appellant K.K. Reidency, Hal Vinayaka Nagar Road Konera Agrahara, Bangalore 560016 [Pan: Dvops2307L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Kalpetta Appellant By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.01.2025

disallowances, this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be misreporting and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity u/s 270AA.” Therefore, in the light of above facts and law the order of penalty

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

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

disallowance of expenditure. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order had dismissed the appeal ex-parte after passing a reasoned order. SP No. 55/Coch/2025 Venus Industries vs. ACIT 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. At the outset

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

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

disallowance of expenditure. 5. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order had dismissed the appeal ex-parte after passing a reasoned order. SP No. 55/Coch/2025 Venus Industries vs. ACIT 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. At the outset