MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

12A of the Act. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 returning NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. The AO called for various details and based on the same completed the assessment accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

12A of the Act. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 returning NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. The AO called for various details and based on the same completed the assessment accepting the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently

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

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

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

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered charitable trust engaged in educational activities and running a school in a village of Kuttanadu in Kerala. It was granted registration under Section 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

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

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

2. Since identical issues are involved, these appeals are heard together and disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant trust is duly registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It was found with the object of providing education and medical facilities

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

2. Since identical issues are involved, these appeals are heard together and disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant trust is duly registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It was found with the object of providing education and medical facilities

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

2. The assessee, a society by the name Pushpagiri Medical Society, is running a 800 bedded hospital (by the name Pushpagiri Hospital) and 5 medical institutions. It is registered both under 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