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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45, 30,81, 080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97, 03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959 for 50 years, under which, the annual rent was paid by the Lessee to the Lessor. The lease would have continued till 2009. However, during the relevant previous year i.e. in March

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

disallow the entire claim under section 54F. 4. The assessee filed reply dated 29-8-2017 to the notice stating that the conditions under section 54F is satisfied and that the entire payments towards cost of the Apartment in Sobha City was paid by assesse's husband Dr. Jose Joseph Vempilly completely out of his fund and the name

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

disallow the entire claim under section 54F. 4. The assessee filed reply dated 29-8-2017 to the notice stating that the conditions under section 54F is satisfied and that the entire payments towards cost of the Apartment in Sobha City was paid by assesse's husband Dr. Jose Joseph Vempilly completely out of his fund and the name

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va).Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

disallowance of claim made u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the capital gains on the transfer of the capital assets, insofar as the second residential house is concerned. Before going into the merits of the case, let us have a look on the provision, which deals with the issue, i.e., section 54F, which reads as under:- “[54F. Capital gain

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

M/S EDAVANAKKAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 1,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(5) NON CORPORATE, KOCHI

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

disallowed by AO mainly 4. on the ground that the assessee is mainly in to banking business and not providing advances/credit for agriculture and Rural Development Activities. According to the AO, the assessee cannot be classified as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society; and since the assessee Co- operative Society is doing banking business, he treated it as a Co- operative

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM vs. HLL LIFECARE LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the Special Bench decision in the case of Cheminvest

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D(1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does 6 ITA No.321/Coch/2024. HLL Lifecare Limited. not account for the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow, for the current year, the deduction allowed u/s. 54F(1) for AY 2007-08 to the extent of Rs. 25,58,075: Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee