THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance of administrative expenses to the tune of Rs.26,63,823/- as was made by the AO by invoking provisions of Section

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance of administrative expenses to the tune of Rs.26,63,823/- as was made by the AO by invoking provisions of Section

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

disallowance of administrative expenses to the tune of Rs.26,63,823/- as was made by the AO by invoking provisions of Section

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

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot [2015] 63

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

disallowed deduction by taking\nin to the proportion of agri-loans loans out of the total loans\ndisbursed, which constitute to less than 1% of the total loans.\nHence, it may be reasonably inferred that the Ld. AO had\nadmitted that the loans advanced were only to the members\nof the Appellant. In this regard the Appellant wishes to rely

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

63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the addition on account of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, by holding that it is a capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while

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

63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the addition on account of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, by holding that it is a capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while

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

63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the addition on account of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, by holding that it is a capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while

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

63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the addition on account of guarantee commission paid to the State Government of Kerala, by holding that it is a capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

63,940/-. In respect of International Transactions entered into by the assessee company, the Assessing officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA (l) of the Actfor determining the arm's length price in respect of the International Transactions. By order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Order made an adjustment

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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG 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)

63 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, or permitted by Section 64 of the said Act. In other words, it dealt with the surplus profit in a manner envisaged under the regulatory Statute that regulated, and thereby legitimized, its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Under those circumstances, if the assessee managed to earn some additional

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid claim for deduction and made addition of INR.1,63,05,247/- by restricting the deduction of INR. 1,64,15,229/- claimed by the Assessee to INR. 1,09,982/-. In appeal, the CIT(A) concurred with Assessing Officer and declined to grant any relief. Hence

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1194,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the connected stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P and income assessed at Rs.9641230/- was bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We notice that the instant issue related