SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

revision ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 5 Sri.Sahadevan K. order. We noticed that on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Dr.Damodar Rout v. CIT in ITA No.44/2014 (judgment dated 20th March, 2019) had reversed the Tribunal’s order. In the case of Dr.Damodar Rout (supra) the ITAT had dismissed the appeal in limine

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

revision ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 5 Sri.Sahadevan K. order. We noticed that on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Dr.Damodar Rout v. CIT in ITA No.44/2014 (judgment dated 20th March, 2019) had reversed the Tribunal’s order. In the case of Dr.Damodar Rout (supra) the ITAT had dismissed the appeal in limine

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

revision u/s 263 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the same issue was raised at the reassessment u/s 147 and the assessment by NFAC has also found the same to be in order. Therefore, when the online portal of the Income tax department is self-explanatory with regard to the deduction and payment of the TDS

DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

revising the assessment under section 263 of the Act. In that case, the Court observed that “since no such enquiry was made by the ITO ............. the assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue and what is prejudicial to the interests of revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always

M/S. NEDUMATTOM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE ITO, THODUPIZHA

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

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

revise the assessment order for the reason that out of the total interest earned by the assessee-society, a sum of Rs.52,37,702 is interest income on investment with M/s.Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited. According to the PCIT, as per section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act, interest / dividend received from investment with co-operative societies alone would

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ADCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

revision u/s. 263 of the Act, Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep KumarTodi (325 ITR 96). 6 I.T.A. No.124/Coch/2016 7. With regard to the claim of expenditure on interest, contention of Ld. AR was that no error whatsoever was pointed out by Ld. PCIT in the assessment

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

revision, appellant filed an appeal filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal confirmed the revisionary order. The AO passed the consequential order to the order passed u/s. 263 vide order dated 18/12/2023 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 21,85,99,699/- before set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss. While

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised under section 263 of the Act. 10. However, the learned PCIT disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that as per the provision of section 199 r.w.r. 37BA of the Rules, the credit of TDS can be claimed only in the year to which the corresponding income is taxable. The amount of TDS on corresponding interest income

SRI. NAGARAJAN RAMACHANDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M

263 as exercised by learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram [PCIT] vide order dated 22-03-2021 against assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 06-12-2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was proceeded with

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, Adv. Tax or self-assessment tax is deemed to be given.’ The same stood confirmed in first appeal; the ld. CIT(A) holding as: ‘In the present case, assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed for the A.Y 2010-11 on 28.3.2013. The appellate order was passed on 16.2.2016. The order of the Assessing Officer merged with

M/S.SUDCHEMIE INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1 (Pr. CIT) in respect of assessee’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2.1 Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Shri Bhatt

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and— (i) in a case where the interest

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

revised return of income which was taken into consideration. The assessee company was approved as a 100% EOU by the Board of Approval on 29.03.2000 for a period of 5 years and 2 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. subsequently it was extended vide Green Card No. 139/CSEZ/2005 dated 29.03.2005. The commercial production was started on 01.062001. Form NO. 56G was also

COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY ( FORMERLY COCHIN PORT TRUST),KOCHI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.3.2022 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin-1 [PCIT] in respect of it’s assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018. 2. Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted by Sri.Gopi, the learned counsel

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

revised with an object of reducing the tax litigation. Vide para 3 of the said circular (supra), it is stated that in cases where the tax effect in the appeal to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs, appeal should not be filed. Thus, taking a note of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated