M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

47/ /Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Olavanna Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward – 2(3), Kozhikode vs. Olavanna P.O., Kozhikode [PAN:AAAAO3624P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants by: S/Shri Suresh Kumar, R. Krishnan, CAs & Ms. Lakhmi Menon, Adv. Respondents by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement

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)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

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)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

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)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,152/- only, out of which the AO had made the disallowance of Rs. 60,65,112/- which is nearly 90% (approx.) of the total administrative expenses. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: - “6.9 However, as regards the disallowance made by the AO in accordance with Rule 8D (iii) of the Income

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,152/- only, out of which the AO had made the disallowance of Rs. 60,65,112/- which is nearly 90% (approx.) of the total administrative expenses. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: - “6.9 However, as regards the disallowance made by the AO in accordance with Rule 8D (iii) of the Income

CONDIS INDIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

47,152/- only, out of which the AO had made the disallowance of Rs. 60,65,112/- which is nearly 90% (approx.) of the total administrative expenses. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: - “6.9 However, as regards the disallowance made by the AO in accordance with Rule 8D (iii) of the Income

NEW GIRIJA JEWELLERS,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhnew Girija Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kmcw-1-1496, Nr. Bus Stand Ward -1, Kasaragod Main Road, Kanhangad Vs. Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Aaepn7303F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(b) disallowance of Rs. 2,47,700/- on account of excess remuneration claim without dealing with the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

47,67,931/- u/s.40(a)(ia) is deleted. 5.9 As regards, Ground No.5 of the appellant that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed expenditure against legal charges for not effecting T DS u/s.194C, I find no reason to interfere with the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as the Assessing Officer has correctly made disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for an amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further, the AO made addition of Rs.13,47

THE VELIYANAD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO 29,VELIYANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Veliyanad Co-Operative Society Ltd. .......... Appellant 14A, Arakunnam Veliyanad B.O. Edakkattuavyal, Ernakulam 682303 [Pan: Aacat9073F] Vs. Ito, Corporate Ward (2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Amaljith P.J., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

47,390/-. While doing so, the AO had denied deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that no return of income was filed within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, placing reliance on provisions of section 80AC of the Act. Further, the AO made disallowance

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10.\nThe above communication is nothing but a covering letter forwarding\napproval from JCIT to AO. It is not copy of actual approval accorded by\nJCIT. Based on this material, it is difficult for us to judge whether the\nJCIT

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

47,28,321/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance or the management fees payable to M/s. Dubai Port World of Rs. 2,93,59,617/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to deduct tax at source under the provisions of section

INDIA GATEWAY TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ICTT, VALLARPADAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

47,28,321/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance or the management fees payable to M/s. Dubai Port World of Rs. 2,93,59,617/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to deduct tax at source under the provisions of section

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

disallowance under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.41,41,053/- in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act is uncalled for as all the necessary details were furnished by the assessee to the AO based on which the assessment order has been passed. He placed reliance on the decision

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10. The above communication is nothing but a covering letter forwarding\napproval from JCIT to AO. It is not copy of actual approval accorded by\nJCIT. Based on this material, it is difficult for us to judge whether the\nJCIT