FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly computed

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

36,164 is against law and contrary to the facts of the case. The addition cannot be made in 143(1) intimation. Under sub clause (v) to section 143 1(a) of the Act, the A.O may made disallowance of deduction claimed under section 143(1)(a)of the Act, the A.O may make disallowance of deduction claimed under section

THE PARAKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ADOOR vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va) of the Act. The employees contribution is not covered by Section 43B of the Act and the amendment made is retrospective in nature. She also submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had decided the issue in favour the Revenue in the case of Mechem Ltd. (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker). She further submitted that

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

VIA of the Act under which Section 80IA of the Act falls would depend, as\npointed out above, upon the satisfaction of the facts necessary for claiming a\ndeduction. The allowing of a deduction in a subsequent year's assessment order\ncannot determine the facts as existing in the earlier assessment year, such as in this\ncase

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

36(1) (viia) (d) provides that deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by Non-Banking Financial Company can be allowed to an extent of an amount not exceeding 5% of the total amount computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA. A non-banking financial company shall have the meaning assigned

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Incomeunder the Head ‘Income form Business and Profession’. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: "The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction

LAKSHMI HOSPITAL,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year: 2019-20

VIA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") of Rs.1,74,600/- was made resulting in taxable income of Rs.83,09,600/- and Assessing Officer levied tax accordingly. During the course of processing of the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 36

KADUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - NO: 628,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1, (1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kadukutty Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kadukutty P.O., (Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [Pan: Aabak0755A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Yash, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash In The Bank

Via) Chalakkudy, Thrissur [PAN: AABAK0755A] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Yash, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

M/S. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Mararikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1509, The Income Tax Mararikulam North Officer, P.O., Ward – 2, Cherthala, Alappuzha. Alappuzha – 688 549. Vs. Kerala. Pan: Aacam9305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amaljith P J, Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 13/08/2021 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal (See Note Below) Intimation Order U/S. 1. 143(1) Is Against The Law Rs.7,36,849/- & Facts Of The Case

36,849/- 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a co-operative bank registered under Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1869. It filed its return of income on 12/03/2020 claiming deduction u/s. 80P of Rs.18,22,113/- which was disallowed by the CPC while passing intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2.2 The reason

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

via e- proceedings and submitted the details called for. Details filed are examined and the income is assessed at Rs. 23,29,62,420/ as per 143(1)(a) of the Act." 8. Section 246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

via e- proceedings and submitted the details called for. Details filed are examined and the income is assessed at Rs. 23,29,62,420/ as per 143(1)(a) of the Act." 8. Section 246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed