MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO, W-3, KANNUR

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmina Wood Industries The Income Tax Officer Iii/656 B, Kallur Ward - 3, Kannur Mattannur Vs. Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagfm2716D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40A(3)of the Act is called for. It is settled view that the provisions of section 40A(3) may not be invoked and addition foisted, if the payee is identifiable and the expenses are genuine. Reliance is placed on the decisions contained in (a) Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Sing Charan Singh

M/S.MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,COCHIN vs. THE DY DIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the Act. The provision for gratuity is not an allowable deduction as per provisions of section 40A(7) of the I T Act. Therefore, the CIT has rightly disallowed the same in his order passed under section 263 of the I T Act. However, the further question is whether the CIT is right in invoking the provisions

M/S.PUTHIYANGADI SERVICE CO-OP BANK,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Puthiyangadi Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Limited No.F1421 V. Ward 1(3), Alappuzha. Puthiyangadi Kozhikode – 673 021 Pan : Aacap0749C. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.43,81,435/-. The Revenue 2 Puthiyangadi SCB Ltd. further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2014-15 Poyiloor Service Co-Op.Bank The Income Tax Officer-2, Kannothumchal Ltd., Poyiloor Post, Kannur. Vs. Pin – 670002 Pan Aacap8990R Kannur - 670 006 (Respondent) (Appellant)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2 Poyiloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2. Suffice to say that we find during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(4

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from M/s. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs. Rs.12,75,20,483/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

TAVINJAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, WAYANAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthavinjal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Thalapuzha P.O. Ward - 1(4), Kalpetyta Vs Wayanad 670664 Wayanad 673122 [Pan: Aadat2035N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing assessee’s sec.80P deduction claim. 3. We find that there is no such condition in section 80A(5) regarding compliance of section 139(1)’s “due” date as the relevant condition stipulates to this effect came u/s.80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018 and afterwards. So far as the Revenue’s claim that section 80P(5) bars section 80P deduction in a belated

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KARASSERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MUKKAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claims representing its income derived from a district co- operative bank amounting to Rs.52,86,755/-, Rs.2,86,60,990/- and 2,48,98,062/-; respectively, as the case may be. The Revenue supports to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee, in fact, is a co-operative bank

KANNUR TOWN SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkannur Town Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer-1 Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kannur 670002 Kannothumchal [Pan: Aabak8385N] Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

THE THRIKKOVIL VATTOM PANCHAYATH SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 read with 9 ITA No.476/Coch/2023. The Thrikkovilvattom Panchayath SCB Ltd. Section 56 of the BR Act, 1949, the primary co-operative bank cannot be a primary agricultural credit society. As such co-operative bank must be engaged in the business of banking as defined by Section 5(b) of the BR Act, 1949, which means accepting, for the purpose

KANNUR DISTRICT EX SERVICEMAN MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY,KANNUR vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2016-2017 Kannur District Ex-Servicemen Multipurpose V. The Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Society Limited, Ward 1 & Tps Payangadi Rs Kannur. Kannur 670 303. Pan : Aaaak8922A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri George Thomas, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal, Ita.No.432/Coch/2023, For Assessment Year 2016-2017, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) / Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051675600(1) Dated 30.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

CLAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALTD.,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 1&TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Clappana Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited No.867 V. Ward 1, Alappuzha. Cp/Viii/410 & 411, Clappana Po Karunagappally, Kollam – 690 525 Pan : Aabac2747A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055921666(1) Dated 11.09.2023, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from a district co-operative bank amounting to Rs.57,15,277/-. The Revenue further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per 2 Clappana SCB Ltd. the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court

VADAKKEVILA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4) of section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14 Therefore, when the definition of "co-operative bank" in section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

THE KADANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAPPALLY vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is a co-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whose primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who are all other co- operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” in Section

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed assessee’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.53,79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating it as co-operative Thurayur SCB Limited. bank and also for the reason that the corresponding loans to the extent of 25% only had been advanced to agricultural sector, as the case may be. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration