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 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,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

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

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

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

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct