REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the Head ‘C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 PAN – AABCE5438L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri R. Krishan, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act. Before CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the appeal and Stay Application filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 150/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 637/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

disallowance made by the ld. A.O. on this ground. It is pertinent to point out that the first appellate authority has not decided the section 80P deduction on the merits as to whether the assessee is a Co-operative Bank or a PACS as claimed by the assessee. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that

ALL INDIA SPICES EXPORTERS FORUM,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ERNAKULAM

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

disallowing the claim for accumulation of income u/s 11(2) and 11(5) on the ground that no evidence is filed as per Income Tax Rule 17 before the expiry of time allowed u/s 139(1). As per Section 11(2), as applicable for AY 2014-15 there was no date specified as to the period within which the form

M/S.BODYGEAR INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

1) of the Act, and therefore, there is no violation of provisions of section 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has 3 ITA No.274/Coch/2023. Bodygear International Pvt.Ltd. confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, defining income, makes no exception for a voluntary contribution received toward corpus, so that it is income by definition, though exempt u/s. 11(1)(d)). It is for this reason that capital expenditure is equally an application of income, entitling exemption u/s. 11(1) on income derived from property held under trust (Tiruppani

PULPATTA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2, TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowed. In appeal, the assessee pressed it’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(1) (r.w.s. 80P(2)(a)(i)) on the basis of the decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 431 ITR 1 (SC). The same was found ineligible inasmuch as the assessee had not claimed deduction u/s.80P per it’s return or revised return

MATHA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,COCHIN vs. THE ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing its section 11 exemption claim in section 143(1)(a)(v) processing since not 2 ITA No. 448 & SA.No.84/Coch/2023 Matha Educational Institutions accompanied by the corresponding tax audit report as prescribed under rule 10B

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,COCHIN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowance of claim for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the prescribed audit report was not filed before the specified date, i.e. one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The condition of filing of audit repot in the prescribed form, i.e. Form 10B

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTHUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,PERUMANUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowance of claim for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that the prescribed audit report was not filed before the specified date, i.e. one month before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The condition of filing of audit repot in the prescribed form, i.e. Form 10B

ST FRANCIS XAVIERS FORANE CHURCH,KANNAMALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 St. Francis Xaviers Forance Church, .......... Appellant Kandakadavu, Andikkadavu (Po), Kannamali, Kochi. [Pan: Aadts 3622 B] Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ernakulam, Kochi .......... Respondent

disallowed. In support of his contention, the following reliance have been placed: (i) M/s. Kalyan Educational Society vs. ACIT [2023 (8) TMI 1336 – ITAT, Kolkata] (ii) M/s. Shree Swami Samarth Seva Kendra vs. ITO [2023 (11) TMI 397 – ITAT, Mumbai] (iii) CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association [2000 (12) TMI 99 – SC] 3 St. Francis Xaviers Forane Church

GOOD SHEPHERD MONASTERY SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO,WARD 1, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2023-24 Good Shepherd Monastery Society .......... Appellant Kmc/No. Ix/319, St. Joseph Covent Junction Railway Station Roax, Kottayam 696001 [Pan: Aaatg8477F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Kottayam

10B of the Act was submitted belatedly. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite

KURIAKOSE ELIAS CARMEL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

1 crore, it claimed exemption under Section 10(23C) (iiiad). For AY 2018–19, the gross income was Rs.7874445 and revenue expenditure was Rs.9481356. No return was filed under the belief that income was exempt. However, based on certain bank information, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 148, and in compliance to the same the assessee submitted Form 10B

LOKA RAKSHAKA SOCIETY,KOLLAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

10B was filed on 30.10.2023. The CPC, however, passed an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 95,16,957, disallowing

M/S.FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is against facts and law 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not correct in denying the exemption under section 11 on the ground that the audit report under section 11 was not uploaded in the portal along with the return of income. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals