THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68, what is required by the assessee is: a) identity of depositors. b) Source and genuineness of such credits is to be explained. In the present case, the explanation of the assessee is that the deposits were received from the members of the Society/customers. It was submitted that the deposits were collected in the normal course of assessee

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68, what is required by the assessee is: a) identity of depositors. b) Source and genuineness of such credits is to be explained. In the present case, the explanation of the assessee is that the deposits were received from the members of the Society/customers. It was submitted that the deposits were collected in the normal course of assessee

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

section 68, what is required by the assessee is: a) identity of depositors. b) Source and genuineness of such credits is to be explained. In the present case, the explanation of the assessee is that the deposits were received from the members of the Society/customers. It was submitted that the deposits were collected in the normal course of assessee

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.” 3. We accordingly conclude that the assessee is indeed eligible

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and permissible deduction of interest income is limited to Co-operative Societies/Banks registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act under clause (d) of the Act and effect order on the above lines is made by the Assessing Officer. The questions are accordingly answered.” 3. We accordingly conclude that the assessee is indeed eligible

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act. The AO further observed that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 44,39,000 and claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 35,77,949 while computing capital gains. Since no supporting evidence for the cost of improvement was produced, the AO rejected the claim and computed the long-term capital gain

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

68,992.63 11. A/c Plant 4,54,254.59 12. Projector fittings 35,427.94 13. Generator 6,81,911.73 14. Ultra Stereo 8,41,964.63 15. Screen 16,406.25 2,99,17,007.37 Less: Outstanding liability to Sylcon (security deposit and loan) 7,00,000 + 6,00,000 13.00.000.00 Rs.2,86,17,807.37 5.1 It was seen that the assessee

HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

54,431/- out of the total agricultural income of Rs. 96,01,431/-. Without considering these evidences, the CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition. He further submits that the AO was not justified in making the addition of the credits in the pass book invoking provisions of section 68

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

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

54,243/-, which was admitted by the assessee is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the Assessing Officer has taken only Rs. 15,04,893/-and that the cheque payment to the extent of Rs. 5,68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

54,243/-, which was admitted by the assessee is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the Assessing Officer has taken only Rs. 15,04,893/-and that the cheque payment to the extent of Rs. 5,68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

54,243/-, which was admitted by the assessee is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the Assessing Officer has taken only Rs. 15,04,893/-and that the cheque payment to the extent of Rs. 5,68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal