M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

66 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.653/COCH/2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD KOCHI-682011.(PAN.AABCK6154B) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR M V ANTONY. BY ADVS. JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA RESPONDENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction u/s 80L Rs. 12,000/- Total Income Rs.3,06,445/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.3,06,450/- 2.3 Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the actual income of the assessee was rounded up to Rs.3,06,450/- . For the other

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed as discussed above Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction u/s 80L Rs. 12,000/- Total Income Rs.3,06,445/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.3,06,450/- 2.3 Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the actual income of the assessee was rounded up to Rs.3,06,450/- . For the other

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 10/03/2015 is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same afresh after considering all issues raised herein above and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. The assessee filed I.T.A No.20/Coch/2017 before the Tribunal

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA MURUGAN

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

1 2008-09 31/12/10 ITA No.78/Ktm/CIT(A)- IV/10-11 dt.04.06.2013 ITA No.510/Coch/2013 dt.25.10.2016 13/2017 2 2008-09 31/12/10 ITA No.79/Ktm/CIT(A)- IV/10-11 dt.04.06.2013 ITA No.512/Coch/2013 dt.25.10.2016 18/2017 3 2006-07 28/12/09 ITA No.37/Ktm/CIT(A)- IV/09-10 dt.05.06.2013 ITA No.511/Coch/2013 dt.25.10.2016 29/2017 3. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Christopher Abraham for Revenue and learned Counsel Mr.Anil Sivaraman for assessee. Both the counsel refer

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance

TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMSSR;INCOME TAX,C-I,THIRUVALLA

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

disallowed the claim of the assessee to treat the rental income as income from the business. The said view of the Assessing Officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Annexure-B order dated 14.03.2006, and by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide order dated 24.08.2007. 3.1 The assessee placed strong reliance