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

24)(i) of the Act to include profits and gains. This sub-section is an inclusive provision. Parliament has included specifically business profits into the definition of the word 'income'. Therefore, we are required to give a precise meaning to the words 'profits and gains of business' mentioned in section 80P(2) of the Act. In the present

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

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

24,523/- was made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained credits. According to provisions of section 271AAC(2

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

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

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

24 Taxman.com.31(CHD) ), the question before the Co-ordinate Bench was whether unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act can be considered for set-off against losses under various heads of income. After examining the relevant provisions in detail, Co-ordinate Bench has held that since the setting off of business losses can only be against

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

24,264/- made in the assessment is undisclosed income coming within the purview of section 68, it being a sum found credited in the books of the assessee with respect to which the explanation offered was not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer. Since section 115BBE was introduced with effect from 01.04.2013, it cannot be disputed

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

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

24(x) of the Act. 7. The assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act and the lower authorities have allowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Therefore Circular No. 37/2016 dated 2nd November, 2016 issued by CBDT will be squarely applicable in the assessee’s case and according to the above circular

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted