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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. The reassessment framed is therefore set aside. As a consequence the addition made is deleted. 7.4 In the case of Director of IT(Exemption) vs. Divyajyot Foundation (2010) (321 ITR 53), the Gujarat High

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

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance made by the Assessing Authority. The Department carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, in turn, made reference to the contentions of the parties and the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel and referred to the judgments, particularly that rendered by the Orissa High Court in CIT v. M.P.Bajaj

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)

12A(2) of the Act, which could only be if the assessment for an earlier year was pending on that date. Processing u/s. 143(1)(a), which was not an assessment, stood completed prior thereto. Verification of the Intimation u/s. 143(1) by him confirmed that the CPC had disallowed the assessee’s claim, as made, i.e., u/ss

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)

12A of the I T Act 1961. The assessee is running a hospital and a medical college. For the assessment year 2011-12, return of income was filed on 30.9.2011 declaring a total income at ‘nil’. In the tax computation statement, the assessee had shown excess utilization for charity of Rs. 16,32,17,532/-. The assessment

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

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] vide order dated 26.09.2018 effective from AY 2018–19 onwards .As the assessee’s gross receipts were below Rs. 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

THE DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), COCHIN vs. M/S. CHINMAYA MISSION EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri P K Bansal & George George K, Jm The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Chinmaya Mission Educational & Tax(Exemptions), Kochi. Charitable Trust, Greater Cochin, Nettipadam Road, Ernakulam. ( Appellant) (Respondent)

12A of the I.T. Act. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 29/09/2011 declaring ‘nil’ income. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 26/03/2014. In the assessment completed, the Assessing Officer had disallowed

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

section 12A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeals. 6. The learned A.R. submits that the application moved by the appellant trust for condonation of delay in filing the prescribed audit report is pending before the Pr. CIT (Exemption), Kochi. Therefore, the matter may be kept in abeyance

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

section 12A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeals. 6. The learned A.R. submits that the application moved by the appellant trust for condonation of delay in filing the prescribed audit report is pending before the Pr. CIT (Exemption), Kochi. Therefore, the matter may be kept in abeyance

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act, on the ground that activities of the appellant is coming under residual entry of sec 2(15) are hit by the provisions of sec 13(8) ws the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The authorities

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act, on the ground that activities of the appellant is coming under residual entry of sec 2(15) are hit by the provisions of sec 13(8) ws the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The authorities

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SABHA,KODUNGALLUR-THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act, on the ground that activities of the appellant is coming under residual entry of sec 2(15) are hit by the provisions of sec 13(8) ws the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The authorities