ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

260 (ii) Disallowance of guarantee commission paid to Government of Kerala u/s.40(a)(iib) of the Act Rs. 65,39,86,799 3 ITA No.81/Coch/2024 & Ors. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (iii) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) Rs. 1,60,63,721 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide

THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.LTD.,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Mathrubhumi Printing & Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps Publishing Company Ltd. Kozhikode Vs. K.P. Kesavamenon Road Calicut 673001 Pan – Aaact8521G Appellant Respondent

260/-. Notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued on 23.03.2019. In response, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 27.03.2019. Subsequently, the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 17.11.2019 by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore and disallowed

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

260/- since the same were incurred to make the\nresidential property habitable. In this regard we find that the\nAssessing Officer had returned the following findings in Paragraph 6\nand 7 of the Assessment Order:\n\"6.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F for investing the\nsales proceeds in a residential house. The assessee has\npurchased a flat in Sobha

TAG CHEMICALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/- only. As per the AO the lease hold right was taken with respect to land which is not depreciable and therefore the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal the learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

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

260 days. The said return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 16.10.2022 denying the exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that the appellant trust has not e-filed the audit report in Form 10B within one month prior to the due date for filing the return of income

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

260 days. The said return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 16.10.2022 denying the exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that the appellant trust has not e-filed the audit report in Form 10B within one month prior to the due date for filing the return of income

M/S.FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KCHI, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017. 2. At the outset, the Learned Counsel, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the instant appeal has become infructuous in as much as the Ld. Assessing Authority had passed a fresh assessment order without making any variation to the income assessed

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have head both the sides on application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Collector of Land Assessment Year 2014-2015 Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others

VADAKKE MADHAM BRAHMASWOM,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shrimanomohan Das, Jm

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’ hereinafter) dated 10.12.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NAFC) vide it’s order dated 30.05.2022. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the corpus donation received by the assessee-trust qualifies to be so, so that