MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

5 of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) refers to the grounds raised on Section 153C which read as follows: 1. "The assessment for the year 2003-04 made under section 153A r.w.s. 153C is bad in law and invalid, since no satisfaction has been reached and recorded by the assessing officer who searched Mr. E. Shemsudhin

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

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. The lease agreement

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. The lease agreement

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 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

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

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

5. On 29.11.1996, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1996-97, declaring taxable income as 'nil'. The assessee arrived at taxable income as 'nil' by setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

5. On 29.11.1996, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1996-97, declaring taxable income as 'nil'. The assessee arrived at taxable income as 'nil' by setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

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

5. On 29.11.1996, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1996-97, declaring taxable income as 'nil'. The assessee arrived at taxable income as 'nil' by setting off the brought forward unabsorbed losses of the preceding assessment years against the current years by computing income of Rs.6,61,75,914/- received from ATL as income from business

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

5. The learned Government Pleader contends that the absence of Section 4(2B) does not, in any way, affect the method and mode of calculation provided for under Rule 3C of the Rules. There is no dispute that the facts on the details furnished by the Department in the order of assessment. Hence, there is suppression of the turnover warranting

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. Sri A.Shankar, as a first shot on the issue, invites our attention to the proviso introduced to Section 12A of the Act which reads as follows: 12A.(1) The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) the person

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5. Sri A.Shankar, as a first shot on the issue, invites our attention to the proviso introduced to Section 12A of the Act which reads as follows: 12A.(1) The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) the person

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

5. Sri A.Shankar, as a first shot on the issue, invites our attention to the proviso introduced to Section 12A of the Act which reads as follows: 12A.(1) The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) the person

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