SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 of the Act unless revenue could have found that the activity of the assessee for the year under consideration was not as per the object. We further note that this Tribunal in the case of SNDP Yogam vs. ADIT (Exemption) reported in 68

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Exemption, Circle, v. Kochi 25/1191, Thekkeswamiyar Madom Thekke Madom Road, Thrissur. PAN : AAHTS1643N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR. Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 17.08.2023 of the Commissioner of Income

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Exemption, Circle, v. Kochi 25/1191, Thekkeswamiyar Madom Thekke Madom Road, Thrissur. PAN : AAHTS1643N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR. Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 17.08.2023 of the Commissioner of Income

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

68,30,684 9 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. In this regard the assessee submitted that the profit from the exempted unit is to be calculated on standalone basis and details were submitted. The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee not agreed to not to set off losses from profit of the eligible unit under Section

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.

Exempt Income' as it consists of Reserve to remove bad and doubtful debts - Rs.95,588/- and Reserve for Interest arrears - Rs.10,40,476/-. The Appellant's contention stated that this is the way followed by the Cooperative Societies of that area is not sustainable and the action of AO is upheld. f) The Appellant itself in its written submissions have

THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WD-2, PALAKKAD

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

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

68 Taxmann.com 298 (Kerala)], the Hon’ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee subject to condition that a return of income has been filed even if it is filed belatedly. It is not the case of the appellant here that the return of income making such claim has been filed even belatedly. Since no return

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

exemption cannot succeed having regard to amended section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

exemption cannot succeed having regard to amended section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

exemption cannot succeed having regard to amended section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

exempt u/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. 7) The leaned Assessing Officer erred in applying the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, without entering into a finding that there is failure to deduct tax in respect of each item. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 8) The learned Assessing Officer went wrong

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

exempt u/s 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. 7) The leaned Assessing Officer erred in applying the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, without entering into a finding that there is failure to deduct tax in respect of each item. The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 8) The learned Assessing Officer went wrong

M/S.SNEHA TRUST FOR CHARITY EDUATION,PALALLAD vs. THE ACIT, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

68 of the I.T.Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not proved the identity and creditworthiness of the persons advancing the amount to the assessee, the genuineness of the transaction and also non production of PAN of the donors. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 The learned

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Exempt income Rs.6,23,75,372 Rs.4,79,33,244 Rs.4,68,60,335 Disallowance u/s.14A -- Rs.97,00,000 Rs.83,34,000 being 0.5% of the average tax free investments Amount disallowed Rs.12,37,89,000 Rs.11,80,57,000 Rs.4,68,60,335 by Assessing Officer invoking Rule 8D 4. On appeal by the Assessee