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

72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration is the nature of the said income. In one of the oldest cases decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 it is held that

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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.

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

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

2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016. 8.1 The first ground for both

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds