ELAMKULAM RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TIRUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoelamkulam Rural Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Society Ltd. Ward - 1, Tirur Cherukara P.O. Vs. Malappuram 679340 [Pan: Aaaae7167K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing claim of deduction u/s. 80P on the ground that the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 80AC mandates that in order to claim deduction u/s. 80P, the return of income should be filed within the due date prescribed under the provisions of section

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 80(P)(4) of the Act and hence, there orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority are liable to be setaside. P. The decisions of various High courts and ITATs acr+oss the country on the disallowance

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 80(P)(4) of the Act and hence, there orders passed by the assessing authority and the appellate authority are liable to be setaside. P. The decisions of various High courts and ITATs acr+oss the country on the disallowance

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY P. LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

disallowing Rs.58,91,000/- under section 80-IA of the Act, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. Prior to the amendment the deduction could

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under SP No.76/Coch/2022 & ITA No.952/Coch/2022 Page 7 of 9 sub-section (1) of section

M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80- IC, 80-ID or section 80

THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80- IC, 80-ID or section 80

KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 2 , KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80- IC, 80-ID or section 80

MAVELIKARA AIDED SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,MAVELIKARA vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80- IC, 80-ID or section 80

M/S.HOSDURG RANGE KALLU CHETHU THOZHILALI VYAVASAYA CO-OP SOCIETY,CALICUT vs. THE ITO WARD 1, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalhosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Income Tax Officer Vyavasaya Co-Operative Scoiety Ward - 1, Kannur Kunnummal, Kanhangad P.O. Vs. Hosdurg 671315 [Pan: Aaaah4840A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80- IC, 80-ID or section 80

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

UMMANNOOR RURAL CO-OP SOCIETY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act on the ground that the return was filed belatedly. Challenging the said intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee filed the return of income on 2 ITA No.299/Coch/2023& SA No.62/Coch/2023 Ummannoor Rural Co-op Society. 07.11.2018, which is in time, and therefore, the intimation

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

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. 2. The CIT (Appeals), in the appeal filed by the assessee, thoroughly went wrong in disallowing the alternate relief of Rs 73,80