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)

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. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

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

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

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

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)

2 The briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a charitable institution registered u/s 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

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

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. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have known that, the appellant

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. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have known that, the appellant

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. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have known that, the appellant