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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same appears to be a recurring issue between the parties wherein this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench in earlier order dated 22.03.2019 had rejected the assessee’s very contention(s). The assessee thereafter filed its appeal

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

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

section 36 due to non-fulfilment of condition specified in relevant clauses) against sub-item M (Provision for bad and doubtful debts)... hence no disallowance is warranted” 4. The PCIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to set aside the order passed u/s.143(3) by holding that – “6.1 It is a fact that

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2(c) of the BR Act, 1949 on obtaining licence under Section 22 of the said Act. Conclusion: In the instant case, although the appellant society is an apex cooperative society within the meaning of the State Act, 1984, it is not a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 5(b) read with Section