CHANDIROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. JCIT, RANGE 1, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowing deduction under Section 80P and determining the total income at Rs. 32,96,560. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited within the time prescribed under Section 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings under Section 271B

KARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section SOP of the Act. It is noted that penalty under Sections 271B and 271F

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 271B was to be imposed on assessee.” 14. The facts of the case on hand are identical as discussed above. Thus, respectfully following the same, we delete the penalty imposed by the Revenue. ITA No. 783/Coch/2024 – AY: 2020-21 15. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 16.08.2024 confirming the action

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 271B was to be imposed on assessee.” 14. The facts of the case on hand are identical as discussed above. Thus, respectfully following the same, we delete the penalty imposed by the Revenue. ITA No. 783/Coch/2024 – AY: 2020-21 15. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 16.08.2024 confirming the action

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 271B was to be imposed on assessee.” 14. The facts of the case on hand are identical as discussed above. Thus, respectfully following the same, we delete the penalty imposed by the Revenue. ITA No. 783/Coch/2024 – AY: 2020-21 15. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 16.08.2024 confirming the action

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