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 6

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

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

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

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. The second shot is that the steps taken by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 arise from admitted circumstances. However, the question available under Section 148 was not argued explicitly before the authorities under the Act. Being a question of law, the assessee is entitled to raise the questions before this Court, and rightly the questions are allowed

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

6. The second shot is that the steps taken by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 arise from admitted circumstances. However, the question available under Section 148 was not argued explicitly before the authorities under the Act. Being a question of law, the assessee is entitled to raise the questions before this Court, and rightly the questions are allowed

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

6. The second shot is that the steps taken by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 arise from admitted circumstances. However, the question available under Section 148 was not argued explicitly before the authorities under the Act. Being a question of law, the assessee is entitled to raise the questions before this Court, and rightly the questions are allowed

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

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

6. The above findings are under challenge in this appeal. The substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue reads thus: ITA NO. 180 OF 2019 -7- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in the context of the Supreme Court decision in the case of ACIT VS.M/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.Limited holding that

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

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

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

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

C. ABRAHAM THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP TAX 6/2019 -2- JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti, J. State of Kerala/Department is the petitioner. M/s. Vivanta by Taj Malabar, Wellington Island, Cochin/dealer is the respondent. The issue arises under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (for short