THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

forward losses Total Amount of set off Balance Depreciation 3,36,17,037 2,98,15,179 38,01,858 Business loss 40,37,633 10,08,807 30,28,826 Total 3,76,54,670 3,08,23,986 68,30,684 9 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. In this regard the assessee submitted that the profit from the exempted

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

loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed 7 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. with respect to allowing set off against the carried forward

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 68 to 69D are grouped under the Chapter VI of the Act under the heading 'Aggregation of Income and Set-off or Carry Forward of loss

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 68 to 69D are grouped under the Chapter VI of the Act under the heading 'Aggregation of Income and Set-off or Carry Forward of loss

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record

SRI.K.R.SURESHKUMAR,,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, TRICHUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri K.R. Sureshkumar Acit, Circle - 2(1) Kallada House Thrissur Vs. Thanissery Post Irinjalakuda, Thrissur Pan –Ajcps6553P Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act followed by the rejection of his claim that this addition made deserves to be set off against brought forward losses of earlier years; respectively. 3. Learned DR highlighted the fact that the assessee appears to have filed his additional evidence application dated 26.08.2016 inter alia containing a list of the corresponding parties. We find

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

carried forward from earlier assessment years, it cannot be considered as unexplained credit in the assessment year under consideration. Hence, to that extent, the addition cannot be made in this assessment year. However, the balance Rs.5 lakhs represents the cash gifts received by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration for which the assessee has not given any details

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2015-16. The ITO (Exemption), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 44,88,000/- in current account maintained with South Indian Bank Ltd. and Rs. 19,68,000/- in the account maintained with Catholic

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2015-16. The ITO (Exemption), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 44,88,000/- in current account maintained with South Indian Bank Ltd. and Rs. 19,68,000/- in the account maintained with Catholic

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

68 taxmann.com 298). He has submitted a copy of the P&L account in Annexure-2 which reads as follows: - S.No. Loss Rs. S.No. Profit Rs. 1 Total loss as per 1 Total profit as per trading account trading account 2 Interest 7359077 2 Interest receivable 5978097 outstanding 3 Establishment 1304782 3 expenses 4 Contingency 1231087 4 Miscellaneous 4242442 expenses

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

carried out by an entity or a liability has been incurred at the balance sheet date. In the present case the loss on onerous contacts represented the amount provided for anticipated loss to be incurred in respect of two contracts entered into with "Make My Trip" and "China Eastern Airlines". 11. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 144 itself is not in order, in which case the same would require being cancelled first. As afore-noted, the said invocation is valid and, in fact, not in dispute. He, however, rather than dismissing the assesse’s appeal at the threshold for non-admission of evidence, ought to have, in our view, either cancelled the assessment, directing fresh