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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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

6 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 under the Act and Rules, even then, it is reasonable to presume that intimation required u/s. 11 is to be furnished before the AO completes such assessment because such assessment is mandatory and without furnishing the particulars of income, the AO cannot ascertain the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, compliance of requirement

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)

section 11 of the Act cannot be extended to the assessee. Hence, the AO disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 50 Lakh to the total income of the assessee. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 14A should be limited to only interest liability and not overheads or administrative expenditure; which should be considered for disallowance under rule 8D from 2007-08 onwards.” The conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior to 2007-08 no overhead or administrative expenditure could be disallowed and only interest expenditure could be disallowed. For AY after

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