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

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.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

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

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

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

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash

SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

56,463 Cashew Co. 2. Sunfood 18,438.840 53,53,590 290.34 310.83 57,31,345 3,77,755 Corporation 3 Nut Products 4,195,800 10,03,650 239.20 310.83 13,04,181 3,00,531 Company 4 Pratap Cashew 3,016,440 7,83,400 259.71 310.83 9,37,600 1,54,200 Company (P) Ltd. 5. Prakash