Kunhiappa v. ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin)

76 ITD 19Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25601 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing Kunhiappa v. ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin)

The ITO, Kollam vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 477/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…al evidence for these years. The Ld. DR submitted that the following case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case: a) K. Moidu alias Kunhiappa vs ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin) b) Samrat Beer Bar vs. ACIT (76 ITD 19) (ITAT, Pune) c) Dr. RML Mehrotra vs. ACIT (68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A.…

The ITO, Kollam vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers and Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 476/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…al evidence for these years. The Ld. DR submitted that the following case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case: a) K. Moidu alias Kunhiappa vs ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin) b) Samrat Beer Bar vs. ACIT (76 ITD 19) (ITAT, Pune) c) Dr. RML Mehrotra vs. ACIT (68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A.…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sunny Jacob Jewellers & Wedding Centre, Kottarakkara

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 326/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…al evidence for these years. The Ld. DR submitted that the following case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case: a) K. Moidu alias Kunhiappa vs ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin) b) Samrat Beer Bar vs. ACIT (76 ITD 19) (ITAT, Pune) c) Dr. RML Mehrotra vs. ACIT (68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A.…

Kunhiappa v. ACIT (256 ITR (AT) 76 (ITAT, Cochin) (76 ITD 19) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax