M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 37(1) and Explanation 1 has no application at all. This is because disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 37(1) and Explanation 1 has no application at all. This is because disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 37(1) and Explanation 1 has no application at all. This is because disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act and hence the provisions of section 37(1) may not be applicable." 4.4.4. Therefore, as explained by the jurisdictional tribunal, provisions of section 37 of the I.T. Act cannot be applied to disallow

M/S. MAVOOR TRADE LINKS,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K.

disallowance of Rs.12,00,000/- may be deleted. 6. The Ld. AR has produced the documents to prove that the property purchased was now the asset of the assessee firm. The Ld. AR has filed a brief written submission which reads as follows: “The phrase “for the purpose of business" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii

M/S.COMBINED FOODS P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

disallowance either under section 36(1)(iii) or under section 14A. The Ld. AR submitted that the only reason given

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. The deduction is allowed at 40% of the profits derived from eligible business after reducing from such profits any deduction to be allowed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act. There

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

disallowance of the claim of the assessee for advances given for development of housing is concerned u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 8. Against this, both the Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before us. The Ld. AR had made elaborate submissions which has been extracted in the CIT(A)’s order. The Ld. DR relied