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 56

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 56

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on addition of unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

THEACIT, COCHIN vs. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

viia) is to be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Hence, ground no.2 is allowed. Ground no.3: 6 Both the sides agree that this ground is connected with ground no.1. It was submitted by the ld AR that in the event that the assessee’s contention is accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards the rural

M/S.THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

viia) is to be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Hence, ground no.2 is allowed. Ground no.3: 6 Both the sides agree that this ground is connected with ground no.1. It was submitted by the ld AR that in the event that the assessee’s contention is accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards the rural

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56,460. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO) passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE LTD,CHEMBUKKAVU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) &TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56,460. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO) passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56,460. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO) passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

56,460. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO) passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 5th September, 2022 at a total income of Rs.454,75,49,402. While doing so, the AO made following disallowances. (i) Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts