TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2016 and served upon the assessee 2.2 Thereafter, the ld. AO based on the accounts of the assessee had disallowed the charges paid towards hoardings for the reason that the assessee

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2016 and served upon the assessee 2.2 Thereafter, the ld. AO based on the accounts of the assessee had disallowed the charges paid towards hoardings for the reason that the assessee

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

reopening u/s. 263, the assessment, which was duly completed, after verification of records/documents u/s. 143(3) of the Act, since there is no error which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which requires revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the assessments completed legally and in accordance with law cannot be re-opened

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

reopened scrutiny assessment proceedings were taken up under National Faceless Assessment Scheme. Thereafter the assessment proceedings were transferred to the Income-tax Office r, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum (hereinafter, ‘the Ld.AO’). The Ld.AO found that the PAN of the assessee was not registered on the e-filing portal and no email ID was available in the systems. The Ld.AO issued

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 68 pages enclosing therein the financial statement for the year ending 31.03.2020, the various orders of Income Tax Authorities and the case laws relied on. The learned

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Kerala State Co- operative Bank Ltd., The Deputy CO Bank Towers, Commissioner of Palayam, Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram – Circle -1(1), 695 033. Thiruvananthapuram. Vs. PAN: AAAAK4255G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dijo Mathew, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11-09-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024 ORDER

DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

TDS statements/returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 1-6-2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E. Hence, the intimation issued by the Ld.AO under section 200A in the present appeals does not stand and test of law. Therefore he submitted that the issue raised by way of charging the fees under

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

Assessing Officer (AO) has no power to condone, the said fee was levied vide the impugned processing, at sums ranging from Rs. 12,200 to Rs. 68,000. Though appealable, no appeal was filed by the assessee. Appeal in each case was, however, as against the due date, i.e., latest by 31.8.2015, filed on 29.11.2021, i.e., at a delay

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TAQLIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact