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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowing Rs.3,43,894/- being the contributions and donations made by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that in the case of charitable institutions it is not necessary as per Law to give donations only to institutions which are registered under section 12A

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

disallowing Rs.3,43,894/- being the contributions and donations made by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that in the case of charitable institutions it is not necessary as per Law to give donations only to institutions which are registered under section 12A

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

disallowing Rs.3,43,894/- being the contributions and donations made by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that in the case of charitable institutions it is not necessary as per Law to give donations only to institutions which are registered under section 12A

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

disallowing Rs.3,43,894/- being the contributions and donations made by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that in the case of charitable institutions it is not necessary as per Law to give donations only to institutions which are registered under section 12A

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant

PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL SOCIETY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypushpagiri Medical Society Asst. Cit Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) Vs. Pan – Aaatp2418H Cochin

section 10(23C) and sec. 12A of the Act. For the year under reference it returned nil income, and was assessed thereat, even as the return was selected for complete scrutiny on three parameters, including the claim of refund for Rs. 169.34lacs. The computation sheet forming part of the 1 Pushpagiri Medical Soceity v. Asst. CIT assessment order

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2015-16. The ITO (Exemption), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 44,88,000/- in current account maintained with South Indian Bank Ltd. and Rs. 19,68,000/- in the account maintained with Catholic