THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

14,54,59,169/- made to them by the Trust. Such benefit would have been there, if it was diversion of Trust funds by virtue of section 13(2)(g). It was submitted that the payments were made to offset the cost of construction of building done by the erstwhile Trustees and hence, there was no diversion

M/S.CARBON AND CHEMICALS (INDIA) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOCHI

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

68,152/- to be written back as deemed profits under Section 41(1) of the Act for the AY 1995-96. I.T.R. No.70/2000 -:5:- 6. We have heard Mr. Raja Kannan, the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Sri. P.K.Raveendranatha Menon, the learned Senior Advocate for the department duly instructed by Adv. Navneeth Pai. 7. The learned

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

68 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 340/COCH/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT: M/S. SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD 1ST FLOOR, AMAL JYOTHI BUILDING, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 507. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT.G.MINI OTHER PRESENT: ADV NAVNEETH N NATH THIS INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. M/S.SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCEITY LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

68 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 340/COCH/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT: M/S. SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD 1ST FLOOR, AMAL JYOTHI BUILDING, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 507. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT.G.MINI OTHER PRESENT: ADV NAVNEETH N NATH THIS INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATIONS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

68,04,563/-. The Assessing Officer also declined the special rebate under Section 12 since the assessee was not a registered dealer. 3. In first appeal, the addition made under section 6(2) as also the estimation made towards the probable omission and suppression on that aspect was deleted. The declining of special rebate stood confirmed. The State

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

Section 260A of the Act against the order dated 17.05.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate ITA Nos.142 & 323/2019; 5/2020 -40- Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Cochin Bench, Cochin in ITA No. 67/Coch/2019. The subject matter of the appeal relates to the issues arising from the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 13.1 The details

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

Appeals are allowed as indicated above

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

Section 260A of the Act against the order dated 17.05.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate ITA Nos.142 & 323/2019; 5/2020 -40- Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), Cochin Bench, Cochin in ITA No. 67/Coch/2019. The subject matter of the appeal relates to the issues arising from the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 13.1 The details