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

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

D. That as per the amended provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, where TDS is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 139, the expenses can be disallowed. E. That

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

43-B If the assessee fails to deposit the PF, ESIC etc Contribution before the due dates as per the respective Acts. Effect of Section 43B on unpaid liability towards contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the 6 Ayurgreen Ayurveda Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. Employees' State Insurance

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

5. The learned AO has erred in disallowing the claim of Rs 14,06,31,409/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section

PANNIYANKARA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NOD 2694,KOZHIKODE, KERALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), KOZHIKODE , KOZHIKODE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhpanniyankara Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer - 1(3) Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, North Block 20/1145, H2, Haseena Building Vs. New Anned Building Kallai, Kozhikode 673003 Mananchira, Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aadap2833J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

43,17,534/- representing interest income from deposits made in co-operative Banks as eligible for tax deduction. 2 Panniyankara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 3. Learned Sr. DR vehemently argued in the course of hearing that such interest income could have hardly be held even derived from assessee’s regular credit facilities made available to the members concerned

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

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 20.09.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s four appeals arise against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

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

D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: The stay petition and the appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] dated 26.10.2022 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal – “1. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) National Faceless Centre, Delhi dated 26/10/2022

TRICHUR DIST ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

43,513. 2 ITA No.496/Coch/2024. Thrissur Dist Electricity Board Employees Co-op So Ltd. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer took a view that the assessee is not entitled for the deduction of interest income earned from co-operative

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

D E R Per George George K, Vice-President : This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “CIT(A)”], dated 16.01.2025, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016. 2. The solitary issue that

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

d) of the Income Tax Act are concerned. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 4. The manner of computation as done by the Assessing Officer and approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,43,520/- made

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

d) of the Income Tax Act are concerned. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 4. The manner of computation as done by the Assessing Officer and approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.5,43,520/- made