M/S.MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL,COCHIN vs. THE DY DIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Vs The Dy Director Of Income Tax Medical Mission Hospital (Exemption) Kolencherry 682 311 Kochi ( Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure is not hit by sub- section 4 of section 11. Section 11 (4) is attracted only in a situation

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

11&12 on account of not having complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are 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

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

disallowance. However, the assessee claimed that they can claim depreciation as application of income upto and including the assessment year 2014-15 on the basis of section 11

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 12AA of the Act. For the A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee filed their return of income on 26/03/2013 declaring a Nil income after claiming the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee also filed the form 10 on 27/03/2013 in which they explained the reasons for the accumulation. The assessee also filed a condonation petition for the delay

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

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

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

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

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

section(1) is clearly the restriction of 25% of the accumulated income (or Rs 10,000/-, whichever is higher) being exempt. If more than 25% (or Rs.10,000), is tobe exempted then the assessee has to comply with the conditions prescribed u/s 11(2).” v. CIT & Another vs ALN Rao Charitable Trust 216 ITR 697: ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within the specified due date under the corresponding statute than going by the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com