M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income or fifteen thousand rupees, whichever is less, Explanation

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

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

6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

6) of section 40. The income under this clause shall be adjusted to the extent of the amount not so allowed to be deducted ; " [Emphasis Supplied] From the above relevant provisions, it is evident that the interest income is assessable under section 56 of the Act only if such interest is not assessable I.T.A. No.68 /Coch/2018 under other heads

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

disallowance cannot be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 6. We further observe that Section 80AC(ii) has been amended by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2018. The case before us is related to AY 2016-17. Accordingly the amendment will not apply in this case for the impugned assessment year. A similar issue has been decided

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The assessee’s third substantive ground challenge correctness of the lower authorities action in making sec.36(1)(viii) disallowance of Rs.8,39,91,691 representing long term finance made available to the “eligible business” in the relevant assessment years. The tribunal’s earlier order (supra) has also dealt with the very same issue of section 36(1)(viii) deduction

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

6 separate orders, all dated 30/06/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas