Ita/69/2016 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938 ITA.No. 69 of 2016 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 169/2015 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 19-11-2015 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE : - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,HEAD OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 002. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2016 ALONG WITH ITA. No. 67/2016. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A :TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2013.ANNEXURE B :TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 02.12.2014PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2015 PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE :NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2016& Income Tax Appeal No. 67 of 2016-------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06[th] day of June, 2016 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The revenue has filed these appeals aggrieved by orderspassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench inITA Nos. 168 & 169/2015 concerning the assessment years2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. The main issue that has raised in these appeals isconcerning the claim for deduction as provided under Section36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. This claim was upheld bythe Tribunal and it is this order which is under challenge. 3. Though we heard the counsel for the revenue atlength, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal is not onlybased on the words of the statute, but also based on theclarification issued by the Board itself vide Circular No. 464 of18[th] July, 1986. In such circumstances, we do no find anyillegality in the order, giving rise to any question of law for the ITA Nos. 69 & 67/2016 consideration of this Court. Appeals are therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE DMR/-