ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

3) Harrisons Malayalam Limited vs. DCIT (24 taxmann.com 59) (Kochi Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (189 ITR 182) (Ker.) I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 8.6 The Ld. DR submitted that decision relied upon by the assessee was given in an entirely different context. At that point of time income form value added rubber was never

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

13 to 2014-15, the AO disallowed expenditure in accordance with Rule 8D of the Rules. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014- 15, sustained addition to the extent permitted and by following the formulae suggested by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra