THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in treating the interest received from cooperative banks as income from other sources and disallowing the claim u/s 8OP. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have appreciated that the appellant is a PrimaryAgricultural CreditSociety engaged in the business ofaccepting deposits from members and providing loans to members. The Commissioner (Appeals) was bound by the decision

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

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the\nIncome-tax Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration\ncertificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees\nare primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to\na reference order dated 9-7-2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High\nCourt.\n5. The Full Bench

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

8. As for the grievance of the Revenue on the issue of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of S.40A(3), as correctly observed by the learned CIT(A), once the claim of the assessee for exemption under S.11 has been accepted, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

8. As for the grievance of the Revenue on the issue of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of S.40A(3), as correctly observed by the learned CIT(A), once the claim of the assessee for exemption under S.11 has been accepted, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007. However, the expression "such method as may be prescribed" got meaning only by the introduction of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007. However, the expression "such method as may be prescribed" got meaning only by the introduction of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007. However, the expression "such method as may be prescribed" got meaning only by the introduction of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. Sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from April 1, 2007. However, the expression "such method as may be prescribed" got meaning only by the introduction of rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section

THE VELIMALAI RUBBER CO. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

8(2) has always been granted for replacement of useless tea bushes in an entire area and not just for infilling and this has always been accepted by the Department, the explanation given for amendment under ITA No.239 & 381/Coch/2018. 11 M/s.The Plantation Corpn. Of Kerala Ltd. & M/s.The Velimalai Rubber Co.Ltd. section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that

THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

8(2) has always been granted for replacement of useless tea bushes in an entire area and not just for infilling and this has always been accepted by the Department, the explanation given for amendment under ITA No.239 & 381/Coch/2018. 11 M/s.The Plantation Corpn. Of Kerala Ltd. & M/s.The Velimalai Rubber Co.Ltd. section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that

M/S.PUTHIYANGADI SERVICE CO-OP BANK,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Puthiyangadi Service Co- The Income Tax Officer Operative Bank Limited No.F1421 V. Ward 1(3), Alappuzha. Puthiyangadi Kozhikode – 673 021 Pan : Aacap0749C. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the assessee’s section 80P(2) deduction claim representing its income derived from the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.43,81,435/-. The Revenue 2 Puthiyangadi SCB Ltd. further seeks to fortify the same on the ground that this assessee is in fact a co-operative bank as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional high

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi is not justified in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of Rs.1,83,55,106/-. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had huge value of investments capable of earning exempt income and disallowed no expenditure attributable to such investments