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)d and the utilization of corpus donation for revenue expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, examined the circumstances discernible from the material brought on record by the assessee before

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

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

3. Arabian Jewellery, S M Street, Kozhikode, a registered dealer is the petitioner. The State is the respondent. The Dealer is in the business of gold and gold ornaments. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Kozhikode, issued notice dated 23.09.2014 under Section 25 of the KVAT Act (for short, the Act). The reassessment is supposedly on the alleged special rebate

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:

3. The assessee objected to the notice as follows: ITA Nos.61 & 64/2018 -5- (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 belong to the assessee. 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:

3. The assessee objected to the notice as follows: ITA Nos.61 & 64/2018 -5- (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 belong to the assessee. 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

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

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr A.Shankar for the assessee and Mr PKR Menon for the revenue. The learned counsel have referred to the details considered in ITA No.37 of 2012 for disposing of all the appeals. The core issue for consideration in the batch of appeals is the claim and entitlement of the assessee for exemption under

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr A.Shankar for the assessee and Mr PKR Menon for the revenue. The learned counsel have referred to the details considered in ITA No.37 of 2012 for disposing of all the appeals. The core issue for consideration in the batch of appeals is the claim and entitlement of the assessee for exemption under

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

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr A.Shankar for the assessee and Mr PKR Menon for the revenue. The learned counsel have referred to the details considered in ITA No.37 of 2012 for disposing of all the appeals. The core issue for consideration in the batch of appeals is the claim and entitlement of the assessee for exemption under

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

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

3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

3). The assessment was completed by treating the lease rent received from Apollo Tyres Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,61,75,914/- as income from business of the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice dated 23.3.2001 and ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 15 reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground

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

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

3) of the Income Tax Act dated 10/03/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of 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

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

3. The Revenue challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi in I.T.A No.695/Coch/2006. The subject matter of the appeal relates to the assessment year 2002- 03. The appeal is filed on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer treating

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

3. The dealer, among other objections, resisted the penalty proceedings on the ground that the estimation of suppressed turnover is illegal. Rule 3C of the Rules does not have independent standing since Section 4(2B) of the Act stood omitted from 01.07.2006. The absence of Section 4(2B) on the statute books with effect from 01.07.2006 is an important implication