M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; SP No.76/Coch/2022 & ITA No.952/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 9 (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain

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

68. This issue is also be examined. " Re: Appellant's submissions: I. In limited scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has to restrict himself to issues raised in limited scrutiny and cannot make any additions on other issues. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions mentioned in Annexure A, wherein it has been held that in a case selected

M/S.SNEHA TRUST FOR CHARITY EDUATION,PALALLAD vs. THE ACIT, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

68 of the I.T.Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not proved the identity and creditworthiness of the persons advancing the amount to the assessee, the genuineness of the transaction and also non production of PAN of the donors. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 The learned

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

80 (P)(2) in respect of business income of the appellant. Having regard to the ratio of the decision. of the apex court in Mavilayil in all fairness, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the appellant rather than summarily rejecting the claim of the appellant. 5) The learned

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

80 (P)(2) in respect of business income of the appellant. Having regard to the ratio of the decision. of the apex court in Mavilayil in all fairness, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the appellant rather than summarily rejecting the claim of the appellant. 5) The learned

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

80,844/- under Section 40A(ia) for disallowance of expenses where TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

68 taxmann.com 298). He has submitted a copy of the P&L account in Annexure-2 which reads as follows: - S.No. Loss Rs. S.No. Profit Rs. 1 Total loss as per 1 Total profit as per trading account trading account 2 Interest 7359077 2 Interest receivable 5978097 outstanding 3 Establishment 1304782 3 expenses 4 Contingency 1231087 4 Miscellaneous 4242442 expenses

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

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

68 to 74/Coch/2019 2005-06 03.03.2011 13,80,460/- 13,80,460/- No change in total income 2006-07 12.11.2010 7,49,050/- 7,49,050/- No change in total income 2007-08 09.12.2009 6,58,600/- 6,.50.140/- 4.2 According to the CIT(A), the High Court had confirmed the action of the AO and the only relief given

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

80 P of the Act and the classification of us as a\nCo-operative Bank instead of a Primary Agricultural Credit\nSociety made by the learned assessing officer. The order of\nthe Assessing Officer is erroneous, arbitrary and against\nsettled principles of law.\nThe Appellant is a primary agricultural credit society in terms\nof clause (cciv) of section

SRI.NIHAS BASHEER,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is rejected

Bench: Shri George George K

80,000 Cash 16.03.2010 60,000 Cash 4. P.A.Abdul Rahman 21.05.2009 5,00,000 -- 5. P.A.Mohamed 25.06.2009 4,90,000 -- 20.07.2009 5,19,426 -- 6. Abdul Hakkim 22.06.2009 1,70,000 Cash 7. Sayana Hakkim 23.11.2009 1,50,000 Cash 26,29,436 4.1 The Assessing Officer, after examining the details of each of the credits, held that the above

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed

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

80,673 5. Sunfood 6,07,086.940 16,04,89.080 264.36 268.41 16,29,48,206 24,59,126 Corporation Ltd. TOTAL 48,13,52,780 3,16,52,119 I.T.A. Nos.37 to 49/Coch/2016 3.9.3 For the assessment year 2011-12, in the case of M/s. Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co., as per details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed