M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

Disallowed 87/2016 2007-08 3,10,14,290 3,50,43,680 1,78,39,070 235/2013 2008-09 2,72,58,163 3,80,46,570 1,22,63,460 271/2013 2009-10 4,11,26,710 3,90,28,180 1,83,88,380 265/2015 2010-11 4,41,01,970 4,20,02,029 1

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictional High Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance was made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The object of section 40(a)(ia) is to compel the assessee to deduct tax at source. In other words, as a precondition for claiming the expenditure otherwise allowable, the assessee has to deduct tax as required under the relevant provisions of the Act. On the contrary, the object

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

11 Provision for 213545 gratuity Total 11243799 Total 11356603 Profit of current 107804 Loss for current - year year Grand total 11356603 Grand total 11356603 Net profit 107804 Profit of current 107804 year Total 107804 Total 107804 He further submitted that there is no corresponding amendment in section 143(1)(a). Hence the claim for deduction under section 80P cannot

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1-4-2007. Subsequently Rule 8D was prescribed by the Government for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 14A from 2007-08 onwards. The Hon’ble Court observed that by virtue of the subsequent legislation, there was a 5 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. precise formula for working out the disallowance to be made under section 14A even

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

11. (A) In Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal Raw Jute Taxation Act, 1941, as it entertained a belief that it was not liable to pay purchase tax under that Act. Subsequently, the appellant