RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2017-18 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) These Revenue’s contentions rejected accordingly. 3 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. 4. Learned DR’s next case is that assessee had violated the corresponding norms by not having extended credit facility by way of agricultural loans to the eligible members. We find that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WD-2, PALAKKAD

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

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

68 Taxmann.com 298 (Kerala)], the Hon’ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee subject to condition that a return of income has been filed even if it is filed belatedly. It is not the case of the appellant here that the return of income making such claim has been filed even belatedly. Since no return

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.

5. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the deduction under Section 80P is on the gross total income and deduction is to be enhanced to the addition made to the income. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be submitted at the time of hearing it is prayed to the Honorable Tribunal to allow

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16 on 16/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,37,160/-. The assessment u/s. I.T.A. No. 451/Coch/2019 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed o 21/12/2017 by assessing the total income at Rs.34,73,680/- after making the following additions: S.No. Item Amount

E T DEVASSY AND SONS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Bench: the Assessing Officer who partly agreed but disagreed finally with the same and made addition in the quantum

21,690/-. The said return has been selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2019, determining at a total income of the Assessee at INR.76,16,170/- after making, inter alia, an addition of 2 Assessment Year 2017-2018 INR.25,00,000 under

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

5) of the Act, since the entire excess would be within 15% of the income accumulated as per Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same

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

5) of the Act, since the entire excess would be within 15% of the income accumulated as per Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same

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

5) of the Act, since the entire excess would be within 15% of the income accumulated as per Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same

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

5) of the Act, since the entire excess would be within 15% of the income accumulated as per Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S NEW KERALA INVESTMENTS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S.EDASSERY CERAMICS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S.EDASSERY CERAMICS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.FRANCIS CLAY WORKS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.FRANCIS CLAY WORKS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.FRANCIS CLAY WORKS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S/E.T.DEVASSY &SONS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S.EDASSERY CERAMICS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S/E.T.DEVASSY &SONS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5

DCIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S ST.FRANCIS CLAY DECOR TILES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,658 2,976 65,682 2003-04 26,639 6,21,373 5,94,734 2,28,354 9,556 2,18,798 7 I.T.A. Nos.539-543 /Coch/2013, 532-535/Coch/2013 525 to 529/Coch/2013 594-597/Coch/2013 & 587-589/Coch/2013 2004-05 14,945 3,48,603 3,33,658 1,25,061 5