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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act and that the Assessee had sufficient surplus funds and that the investments being stock in trade no disallowance can be made u/s.14-A of the Act. 16. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act has to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed. ITA NoS.632 & 633/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 12 4. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act in your case on 11/10/2019 shall not be treated as erroneous

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) thereof clarifies that for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. "cost of acquisition" in on to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, tenancy rights, stage carriage

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) thereof clarifies that for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. "cost of acquisition" in on to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, tenancy rights, stage carriage

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) thereof clarifies that for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. "cost of acquisition" in on to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, tenancy rights, stage carriage

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) thereof clarifies that for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. "cost of acquisition" in on to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, tenancy rights, stage carriage

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) thereof clarifies that for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. "cost of acquisition" in on to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business or a trade mark or brand name associated with a business or a right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business, tenancy rights, stage carriage

KARIKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD-1& TPS, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

45,63,797/- earned from the investments made by the appellant in Thodupuzha Urban Co-operative Ban Ltd, Idukki District Co- operative Bank Ltd, Idukki District Police C operative Society Ltd, Idukki District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd 3. Idukki District Co-operative Department Staff Co-operative Society Ltd., Thodupuzha Taluk Co-operative Rubber Marketing and Processing Society Ltd., Thodupuzha

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

2)(a)(i) of the Act and also by disallowing of section 40(a)(ia) deduction. The disallowance of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

2)(a)(i) of the Act and also by disallowing of section 40(a)(ia) deduction. The disallowance of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

2)(a)(i) of the Act and also by disallowing of section 40(a)(ia) deduction. The disallowance of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was done on the ground that the assessee had not collected TDS for the amount paid to the collection agents and for the maintenance charges which amounts to Rs.8,07,914/-. The deduction

THE KUNDAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the claim under section 80P and made an addition of Rs.15,62,130/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that assessee accepted deposits from non- members also. In the absence of details, the AO treated interest paid to the non-members at 10% of the total interest paid. The AO also subjected the interest received from the District

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

2 of 9 Rs.37,50,77,620. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.37,77,62,220. Subsequently the PCIT issued a show cause notice by stating that – “the assesse had debited Rs. 3,38,000 towards ‘provision/(Excess reversal) for Loss Assets” and Rs.2,45