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

68,899 Kerala State Co-operative Bank 6,21,881 District Treasury 5,43,014 Kerala State Consumer Federation Co-operative Society 15,97,654 Consumerfed 20,12,798 Kerala State Rubber Marketing Federation Co-operative 5,56,484 Society Neyyattinkara School Teachers Cooperative Society 2,32,500 Trivandrum Taluk Co-operative Employees Society 1,05,000 TOTAL

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

2)(viib) and section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of the issue / allotment of shares (OPCCPS). The 13 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. Assessing Officer ought to have, even in a limited scrutiny assessment, prima facie examined whether there is a case of escapement of income exceeding the amount prescribed under the Board Instructions. The A.O. after prima facie examination

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

15,229/-\nclaimed by the Assessee to INR. 1,09,982/-. In appeal, the CIT(A)\nconcurred with Assessing Officer and declined to grant any relief.\nHence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee\nchallenging the denial of the aforesaid deduction on the grounds\nreproduced in paragraph 3 above.\n5.\nWe have heard both the sides, have perused

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) of the Act, which specifically prohibit the imposition of a penalty under section 270A of the Act in respect of additions, inter-alia, made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view thatthe penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were rightly dropped by the AO. 12. As regards

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

2(45) defines 'total income' as 'the total income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act". It is relevant to note that the principal charging section 4 makes the 'total income referred to in the principal charging section. Section 14 classifies the heads of income while sections 15

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

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 as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

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 as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

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 as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

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

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

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)

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1). 4.8 The heads of income chargeable under the Act are classified

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)

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1). 4.8 The heads of income chargeable under the Act are classified

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.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.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