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

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, where in a batch of appeals challenging assessments completed under section 147 read with 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, the High Court, after considering section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, various provisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the byelaws of the Societies

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

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

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

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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.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.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

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.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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives