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

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

reassessment is supposedly on the alleged special rebate availed by the Dealer under Section 12(2) of the Act. The alleged circumstances preceding the availing of special rebate are admitted, and hence we proceed to examine the legal grounds raised by briefly narrating as under. 3.1 The Dealer for the return period 2013-14 was paying tax under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), vs. MS/.LOVE IN ACTION SOCIETY NALANCHIRA,

Appeal is allowed as

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

reassessment direction issued to the Assessing Officer is per se illegal. The issue noted by the CIT (Exemptions) arises under Section 11(1

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

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

1) The residence “Shelter”, Jayanthi Nagar Colony, is not in the exclusive possession of Shri K A Rauf (2) The seized documents do not constitute valuable articles or things or books of accounts or documents belonging to the assessee herein. Therefore, the reassessment set in motion under Section

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) The residence “Shelter”, Jayanthi Nagar Colony, is not in the exclusive possession of Shri K A Rauf (2) The seized documents do not constitute valuable articles or things or books of accounts or documents belonging to the assessee herein. Therefore, the reassessment set in motion under Section

K.R. RAZIYA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1

K.R.RAIZA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1 All ER 668] is that if payments in the nature of subsidy from public funds are made to the assessee to assist him in carrying on his trade or 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

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1 All ER 668] is that if payments in the nature of subsidy from public funds are made to the assessee to assist him in carrying on his trade or 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

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

1 All ER 668] is that if payments in the nature of subsidy from public funds are made to the assessee to assist him in carrying on his trade or 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

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

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

reassessment. As mentioned earlier, if the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the Commissioner ought to have initiated revisionary proceedings on or before 31.03.2014. In the instant case the notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was issued much subsequently, i.e., on 02.05.2016 and order

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

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

1. Issue an order or direction calling for the records leading up to Exhibit P5 and quash the same and to restore Exhibit P1 order, 2. Render such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Government Pleader contends that the absence of Section 4(2B) does