THE ITO,, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.BALARAMAPURAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

81(1)(d) [substituted by section 80P by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1968] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies / banks doing both agricultural and nonagricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc., but should be limited to the profits generated from

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

M/S.MUNDELA SERVICECO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(3), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

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

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by finance Act (No. 2) Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01/04/1968) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated

THE ITO, WARD-2(3), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.MUNDELA SERVICECO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by finance Act (No. 2) Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01/04/1968) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated

THE ITO, WD-2(5), TVM, TVM vs. THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by Finance (No.2)Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1968) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated from agricultural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), RG-2, TVM, TVM vs. M/S.EDACKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by Finance (No.2)Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1968) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated from agricultural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), TVM, TVM vs. THE CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by Finance (No.2)Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1968) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated from agricultural

THE ITO, WD-2(5), RG-2, TVM, TVM vs. M/S.EDACKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

81(1)(d) (substituted by section 80P by Finance (No.2)Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1968) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of co-operative societies/banks doing both agricultural and non agricultural activities should not be 100% of the gross profits and gains of business of such societies etc. but would be limited to the profits generated from agricultural

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

Section 67 of the KVAT Act were initiated on finding of excess stock of Rs.14,38,785, and that the suppression of sale was worked out at Rs.17,81,971 by adding gross profit to the excess stock. This is evident from the assessment order, wherein it has been stated thus: "The contention of the assessee is not accepted

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

68,81,663/-. Unless the delay in return filing is condoned, the deduction u/s. 80P cannot be availed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above, the claim of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.FRIDGEHOUSE RETAIL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

81,656 Retail Pvt. Ltd. Balance retained at Natesan Brothers 1,06,98,108 Total 12,48,86,934 His reasons for the same are as under: “The explanation offered by the assessee vide letter dated 23.3.2015 is not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The old partnership firm vide deed dated 01.04.l998 survives as for transfer of business

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

M/S.PIONEER MOTORS (KANNUR) P. LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section, and as the expenditure is not related to the current business from which income is returned, the expenditure is not allowable and hence disallowed.” 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee