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.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

68,157/- was different from that of solatium of Rs. 41,31.979/- and interest of Rs. 1,09,03,339/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,50,35,318/-) and therefore only the solatium and interest could be taxed as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b) read with section 145A(b) in the AY 2013-14 and compensation

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

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

D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2014-2015. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed

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

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 Tax (Appeals) passed for the assessment years 2013–14 and 2016–17 respectively. Since the issues involved in both appeals are identical except for the difference in figures and assessment years, these appeals were heard together

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

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 Tax (Appeals) passed for the assessment years 2013–14 and 2016–17 respectively. Since the issues involved in both appeals are identical except for the difference in figures and assessment years, these appeals were heard together

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

d) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 INR.12,68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Stay Application was also filed by the assessee seeking stay of collection of outstanding demand of Rs. 17,57,52,058/-. 2. Brief facts

THE ITO, WD-2(5), TVM, TVM vs. THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

5 M/s.Chirayankeezhu Service Co-op Bank Ltd.& Anr. Kerala in the case of Perinthalmanna service Cooperative Bank Ltd reported in (2014 363 ITR 68 (Kerala) wherein it was held that "with introduction of section 80P(4) necessarily, an enquiry has to be conducted into factual situation whether co-operative bank is conducting business as a primary agricultural and rural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), RG-2, TVM, TVM vs. M/S.EDACKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

5 M/s.Chirayankeezhu Service Co-op Bank Ltd.& Anr. Kerala in the case of Perinthalmanna service Cooperative Bank Ltd reported in (2014 363 ITR 68 (Kerala) wherein it was held that "with introduction of section 80P(4) necessarily, an enquiry has to be conducted into factual situation whether co-operative bank is conducting business as a primary agricultural and rural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), TVM, TVM vs. THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

5 M/s.Chirayankeezhu Service Co-op Bank Ltd.& Anr. Kerala in the case of Perinthalmanna service Cooperative Bank Ltd reported in (2014 363 ITR 68 (Kerala) wherein it was held that "with introduction of section 80P(4) necessarily, an enquiry has to be conducted into factual situation whether co-operative bank is conducting business as a primary agricultural and rural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), RG-2, TVM, TVM vs. M/S.EDACKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

5 M/s.Chirayankeezhu Service Co-op Bank Ltd.& Anr. Kerala in the case of Perinthalmanna service Cooperative Bank Ltd reported in (2014 363 ITR 68 (Kerala) wherein it was held that "with introduction of section 80P(4) necessarily, an enquiry has to be conducted into factual situation whether co-operative bank is conducting business as a primary agricultural and rural

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23.02.2023 for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 to 2018-19. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common