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

deduction, relying upon section\n80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, holding that as per the Audited Receipt &\nDisbursal Statement furnished by the assessees in these cases,\nagricultural credits that were given by the assessee-societies to its\nmembers were found to be negligible the credits given to such\nmembers being for purposes other than agricultural credit. The decisions

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

deduction from his income." Similarly in the case law of ITO Vs Dulari Digital Photo Services (P) Ltd. ( [2012] 24 Taxman.com.31(CHD) ), the question before the Co-ordinate Bench was whether unexplained cash credit under section 68

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.

Section 80AC has been amended from AY. 2018-19 and deduction u/s 80P can be allowed only if the ITR is filed within the due date. g) In view of the above facts, the action of AO in making addition/adjustment of Rs.11,36,060/- is upheld. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. h) Ground of Appeal No.4

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

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

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

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

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

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income

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.

68,076. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) denying the benefit of section 80P to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by stating that the assessee has filed the return belatedly and therefore in accordance with section 80AC of the Act, deduction

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68 of the Act. 9.1 The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that such amount does not fall under business profits. 9.2. On appeal, the CIT(A) denied deduction

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

deduction of TDS 5.1 The Ld. AO has erred in considering reimbursement of Rs 12,68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section

RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

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 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) These Revenue’s contentions rejected accordingly. 3 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. 4. Learned DR’s next case is that assessee had violated the corresponding norms by not having extended credit facility by way of agricultural loans to the eligible members. We find that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

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.

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; SP No.76/Coch/2022 & ITA No.952/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 9 (v) disallowance of deduction

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

deduction u/s 194J as against payment of uplink charges and backhaul link usage charges. ITA No.606/Coch/2010 & Ors. 11 M/s.Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. 9. On these issues the Hon’ble High Court has observed as follows:- “12. With respect to the payments of uplink charges and backhaul link usage charges, the Tribunal shall examine an expert as produced by the assessee