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

section 56(2)(viib) or 68. This issue is also be examined.” 5. In response to the notice issued

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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)

2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities action disallowing sec.80P deduction claim, the Revenue first of all submits that it had not filed it’s return within the “due” date u/sec.139(1) and therefore, both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked sec.80A(5) of the Act. 3. We find no merit

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) по penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D. The penalty proceedings should have been initiated u/s 271AAC in place of penalty u/s 270A as initiated in the assessment order

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

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the appellant has not incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income of Rs. 6,59,278/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the investments from which the exempt income

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the appellant has not incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income of Rs. 6,59,278/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the investments from which the exempt income

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the appellant has not incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income of Rs. 6,59,278/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the investments from which the exempt income

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the appellant has not incurred any expenditure to earn exempt income of Rs. 6,59,278/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have observed that the investments from which the exempt income

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

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

5 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. 6. We find that a similar issue pertaining to the prospective applicability of the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act as introduced in the Act with effect from 01/04/2017, came for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Kerala High Court in Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v/s CIT, reported

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.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned substantive additions to the extent of Rs.35,18,60,144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge

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.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned substantive additions to the extent of Rs.35,18,60,144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge

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.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned substantive additions to the extent of Rs.35,18,60,144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge