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 incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

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 incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 154 of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the denial

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Assessee has also SA No. 79/COCH/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 filed Stay Application No.79/Coch/2025 in ITA No.571/Coch/2025

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly flouting the provisions of RBI Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly flouting the provisions of RBI Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly flouting the provisions of RBI Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANATHAVADY vs. ITO,WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly fluting the provisions of RBl Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly fluting the provisions of RBl Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section

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

250 only. In verification of the records it is seen that the number of depositors in this case is much more than the permitted limit, thereby openly fluting the provisions of RBl Act, 1934. 9. Therefore, the expenses incurred on accepting public deposits is nothing but an expense incurred for a purpose which is prohibited by law. Explanation to section