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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

d) Justified in interfering with the assessment? 3. Is not the Tribunal wrong to have relied on the decision in Varghese Case (131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that

M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act by the Pr. CIT, Kozhikode dated and pertains to the assessment year 2014- 15. 2. The assessee/Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax , Kozhikode , passed

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)

Section 11(1)(a & b) toward application to the extent of 85% Rs. 9.51 lakhs (b) Income accumulated to the extent of 15% u/s. 11(1)(a/b) Rs. 1.68 lakhs (c) Corpus donation u/s. 11(1)(d) Rs.133.20 lakhs Total Rs. 144.39 lakhs ============ The same was denied on processing the said return vide Intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) dated

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO., P. LTD, IDUKKI

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

131,163&164/C/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM & MANJUNATHA G., AM ITA Nos.77, 78 & 91/1Coch/2017 (Asst Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) M/s. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. Vs The Asst. Commr. Of Income tax, Pvt. Ltd. KDHP House, Door No. Circle-1(2), Kochi IX/2226, N.H. 47, Devikulam

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

131,163&164/C/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM & MANJUNATHA G., AM ITA Nos.77, 78 & 91/1Coch/2017 (Asst Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) M/s. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. Vs The Asst. Commr. Of Income tax, Pvt. Ltd. KDHP House, Door No. Circle-1(2), Kochi IX/2226, N.H. 47, Devikulam

M/S.KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO. P. LTD,MUNNAR vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

131,163&164/C/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM & MANJUNATHA G., AM ITA Nos.77, 78 & 91/1Coch/2017 (Asst Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) M/s. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. Vs The Asst. Commr. Of Income tax, Pvt. Ltd. KDHP House, Door No. Circle-1(2), Kochi IX/2226, N.H. 47, Devikulam

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS CO., P. LTD, IDUKKI

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

Bench: S/Shri George George K., Jm & Manjunatha G., Am

131,163&164/C/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JM & MANJUNATHA G., AM ITA Nos.77, 78 & 91/1Coch/2017 (Asst Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) M/s. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Co. Vs The Asst. Commr. Of Income tax, Pvt. Ltd. KDHP House, Door No. Circle-1(2), Kochi IX/2226, N.H. 47, Devikulam