THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

business income, particularly, in the circumstances of the case. Hence the instant Income Tax Appeal at the instance of revenue. The following substantial questions of law are raised for decision. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the reassessment

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

MOHAMMED SHERIEF vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person [for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

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

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

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re- computation of return etc, is illegal and unauthorised. ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -10- 2.2 The Assessing Authority answered the Principal objection of the assessee namely that the ‘Shelter’ searched by Revenue did not exclusively belong to the assessee’s husband

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re- computation of return etc, is illegal and unauthorised. ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -10- 2.2 The Assessing Authority answered the Principal objection of the assessee namely that the ‘Shelter’ searched by Revenue did not exclusively belong to the assessee’s husband

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

business, they are trade receipts." This has later been followed in Commissioner of Income Tax v Ponni Sugars[156]. 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of “charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01 04 2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

business, they are trade receipts." This has later been followed in Commissioner of Income Tax v Ponni Sugars[156]. 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of “charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01 04 2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, KCA COMPLEX, SASTHAMKOVIL ROAD, vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2,

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

business, they are trade receipts." This has later been followed in Commissioner of Income Tax v Ponni Sugars[156]. 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of “charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01 04 2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions

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

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

business. 4. The Assessing Officer made the assessment order through Annexure-A dated 10.03.2015 rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee. By order dated 06.08.2015 made under Sec.154 of the Act the total income of the assessee has been reduced to Rs.1,60,56,579/-. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemptions) had taken up proceedings under Sec.263

P.K.ABDUL KHADER & BROTHERS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. The parties are referred to as the Dealer and the State, respectively. Identical circumstances are present in both O T Revisions. Reference to the circumstances set out in O T Revision No.180/2020 would be sufficient for disposing of both Revisions. OT.Rev. Nos.3/2021, 180/2020 -4- OT Rev. 180/2021 3. Arabian Jewellery

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TVM vs. M/S HOTEL SUN BEAM, ATTAKULANGARA TVM

Appeal is dismissed as indicated above

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

reassessment made by the Assessing Officer treating the status as AOP as against the assessee’s claim as registered firm is in order in view of the legal position under Abkari Act ITA NO. 197 OF 2009 -3- and Income tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light