JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

211 (SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

211 (SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

211 (SC), the mandate of Section 14A of the Act is to curb the practice of claiming deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income being taxable income and at the same time avail of the tax incentives by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. Consequently

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

211 wherein it was held that such items of expenditure as in the case of the appellant are of Revenue Nature. Copies of the two judgments may be permitted to be submitted at the time of hearing. 6. The ld. CIT(A) should have noticed the fact that the building tax levied by the Trichur Corporation before and after

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct