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

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

11 UA for determining the net value of the shares and to verify applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) / 68

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490,\nwhere in a batch of appeals challenging assessments completed under\nsection 147 read with 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, the High\nCourt, after considering section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, various\nprovisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the bye-\nlaws of the Societies

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

2) specifically prohibits imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 270A upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in section 271AAB(1), which, inter- alia, includes income referred to in section 68 of the Act. 10. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is ostensible that the addition

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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)

2 of section 12A of the Act, the benefit of section 11 can be extended to the assessee for the assessment year prior to the A.Y. in which registration granted under 3 Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust section 12AA provided that the assessment for such prior year/ years is remained pending. 10. Coming to fact of the case

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

11. Some of the salient features of section 14 insofar as they have material bearing on the issue under appeal are as under:- (i) Section 14 merely classifies the income under various heads of income for the purpose of computation of total income under them. Section 14 does not deal with aggregation of income; it merely deals

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

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

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 Singh

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) having decided the very issue in assessee’s favour. Ordered accordingly. Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 5. The Revenue’s next vehement contentions seeks to treat the assessee as a cooperative bank u/sec.80P(2)(4) than a credit cooperative society as per Pr. CIT vs. Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank