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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

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)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1. The order dated 28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property at ‘Skyline Infinity’, Thrissur for the AY 2015-16.; is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

1. The order dated 28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property at ‘Skyline Infinity’, Thrissur for the AY 2015-16.; is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 73,83,53,740/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed without reducing the capital subsidy from the actual cost of assets and treating the interest subsidy

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

section 2(24(x). 7. This issue was raised in prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings have been attached herewith for your kind perusal and records. 8. The proposed disallowance U/s. 36(1)(va) is not applicable in this case. Because it was not a intentional action from the assessee side, but it was purely the technical

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed