SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

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

11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has sold a land jointly owned along with her husband and made an investment in a residential house property and claimed that the conditions given under section

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

11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has sold a land jointly owned along with her husband and made an investment in a residential house property and claimed that the conditions given under section

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

11 of his revisionary order u/s 263 dated 20.02.2017 had wrongly assumed that the rental income of the assessee was treated as "Income from house property" for previous years starting from A.Y 2009-10 to A.Y 2012-13 as well as A.Y 2014-15. The Ld. AR brought on record income tax returns filed for the said Assessment Years showing

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property is to be excluded & treated under respective heads? 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Co- operative societies act & providing credit facilities to its members only. Further, the assessee society also runscooperativedepartment stores

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property is to be excluded & treated under respective heads? 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Co- operative societies act & providing credit facilities to its members only. Further, the assessee society also runscooperativedepartment stores

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

House, Ward 2(2), Kallekundur Road, Vettikattiri Post, Thrissur. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531. PAN : ECBPK 8337R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Ramnath, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of CIT (Appeals

LAST HOUR MINISTRY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

M/S.BELIEVERS EASTERN CHURCH,THIRUVALLA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

LOVE INDIA MINISTRIES,THIRUVALLA vs. THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act or whether in terms of the first proviso to Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act or whether in terms of the first proviso to Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves the carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

house property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that