J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the Department. The issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court inThe Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax [(2016)384 ITR 490 (Ker)]. However, the learned counsel for the appellant- Department points out that in an earlier decision in Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer and another [(2014) 363 ITR 268 (Ker)], the Division Bench had taken a view which is contrary to what was later taken inChirakkal (supra). We have examined the judgment inPerinthalmanna (supra), which was rendered on 31.1.2014 by the Division Bench. The said judgment revolves on only one point that nomenclature is not decisive but the method of activity can be looked into for the Income Tax Appeal No.119/16 :-2-:

purpose of 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act . Obviously, that judgment was not brought to the notice of this Court while Chirakkal was decided on 15.2.2016. Chirakkal went into a consideration of the different provisions and the effect of registration under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the impact of such registration in