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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or\nbooks of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section\n132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person\nrequiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the\nreturn

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3. The assessee’s claim of 244A interest is also restored back to the learned Assessing Officer in preceding terms. 4. Lastly comes the third issue of section 220(2) interest wherein the assessee’s admitted case is that although there is no apparent mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer in arriving at the relevant figure herein

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

SREEKUMARI AMMA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

3,29,573 - 2016-17 2,80,137 - 2017-18 2,38,116 - 5. For A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer made addition towards agricultural income as income from other sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions / disallowances made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

3 raised by the appellant is that the assessing officer erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(vi) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that income from collective disposal of labour of members of the appellant was eligible for deduction under the said section. 5.2 In this regard, I have gone through the submissions

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36 (l)(va) of the Income Tax Act. k) Other decisions in favour of the appellant In the following decisions, the High Courts have held that payments of Employees share of PF collected if made before the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance of section 43B of the Income