THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2(24)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If it is to be treated as a corpus donation, the same can only be excluded In computing the total income under the provisions of section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By virtue of section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had held that

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2). Where the jurisdiction under section 263(1) is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under section 143(3) and which does not form the subject-matter of the reassessment, as in the instant case, limitation must necessarily begin to run from the order under section

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

13 district co-operative banks with the assessee from 29/11/2019, there is a change in the software and therefore the complete datas could not be retrieved for the financial year 2017-18. The assessee further filed the details of the interest on the fixed deposits maintained by the individuals, PF trust and other co-operative societies. The assessee further submitted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total (D) 40,122,587 36,449,671 20,322,209 18,253,280 33,605,500 44,084,211 192,837,458 TOTAL ADDITIONS

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

reassess the total income with respect to each assessment year following the six assessment years specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 153A.” We, therefore, dismiss ground No. 4. Thus, the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2011-12. So far ground Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

2 of section 11 that it is mandatory for the assessee-Trust claiming exemption u/s. 11 to intimate the Assessing Officer particulars required under Rule 7 in Form No. 10. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have necessary information, the question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

2 of section 11 that it is mandatory for the assessee-Trust claiming exemption u/s. 11 to intimate the Assessing Officer particulars required under Rule 7 in Form No. 10. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have necessary information, the question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

2 of section 11 that it is mandatory for the assessee-Trust claiming exemption u/s. 11 to intimate the Assessing Officer particulars required under Rule 7 in Form No. 10. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have necessary information, the question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

2 of section 11 that it is mandatory for the assessee-Trust claiming exemption u/s. 11 to intimate the Assessing Officer particulars required under Rule 7 in Form No. 10. If during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer does not have necessary information, the question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter