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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty

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

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

disallowed the 30% of the interest payments and consequently levied the penalty u/s. 270A(1) of the Act as underreporting. As already stated, the word used in section 270A(1) is, the assessing officer “may” impose penalty which means that there is no mandatory direction given by the statute to impose penalty under the provision. Further, sub-section (2

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

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

section 270A(9) only represent the different forms in which misreporting of income may manifest itself. Why could not, one may ask, the assessee state that his case does not, for the reasons that may be advanced by him, not fall under any of the clauses of s. 270A(9). This is as it is surely not open

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

2) ………. (a) ………. (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148; 9. So it cannot be said that the case of the appellant falls under subsection (9) of section 270A of the Act. Under

MALYANKIL JP SMARAKA SOCIAL WELFARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Malyankil Jp Smaraka Social Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. Kuruvinmughal, Macheal B.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695571 [Pan: Aafam3070N] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1),Thiruvananthapuram ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act. Further, Penalty u/s.271A was levied on 24.09.2024 which is affirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 3. At the outset, the ld.AR referred G.No.3 of the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the legality in the light of section 270A(6)(a) of the Act. Per contra

THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 751,VAZHAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Vazhakulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No.751, Vazhakulam P O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Aacat 2742 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

disallowed the claim for deduction of income earned by the assessee society on the investments held with cooperative bank u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, AO made the addition of Rs. 2,28,52,683/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order held that interest income earned with Ernakulam

THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETTING SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 270A penalty amounting to Rs.1,06,038, we note that it had claimed sec.80P deduction qua rental income 2 ITA No.526/Coch/2023. The Kozhikode Dist Co-op Rubber Mktg So Ltd. derived from godown after letting out the same to its members. The Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 10.07.2019 disallowed

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

2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in these two appeals are interconnected, these were heard together and disposed of vide this common order. 3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts involved in ITA No. 402/Coch/2025, AY 2017-18 are stated herein under. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant

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

2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in these two appeals are interconnected, these were heard together and disposed of vide this common order. 3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts involved in ITA No. 402/Coch/2025, AY 2017-18 are stated herein under. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

disallowed the entire claim of deduction u/s. 80P of Rs. 2,68,81,663/-. Unless the delay in return filing is condoned, the deduction u/s. 80P cannot be availed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above, the claim of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Business’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 31.12.2020 Declaring Nil. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The 2 Jacob Thomas Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 59,34,921/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Claimed Of Rs. 89,73,412/- U/S. 57 Of The Act. Accordingly, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 270A Of The Act. The Appellant Had Failed O Respond To The Above Show Cause Notice. In The Circumstances The Ao Had Proceeded With Levy Penalty Of Rs. 57,24,630/- U/S. 270A By Holding That The Appellant Is Guilty Of Misreporting Income.

2 Jacob Thomas Act) at a total income of Rs. 59,34,921/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of interest expenditure claimed of Rs. 89,73,412/- u/s. 57 of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act. The appellant had failed o respond to the above show cause notice