ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

263 of the Act. 1.3. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in setting aside the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to redo the assessment after verifying the facts and giving opportunity to be heard to the Appellant, ignoring the fact that

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

Section 263, as the order of AO has considered the TDS deducted and paid by the Appellant to the income

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

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

263 of the Act was rightly done. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the present facts of the case the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was taken up on the limited issue that has been recorded hereinabove. The mismatch in expenditure of personal nature, 4 that include

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. 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

263 of the I.T.Act for the reason that interest income received from M/s.Idukki District Co-op Bank Ltd. was not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act. The PCIT had set aside the assessment directing the A.O. to examine the activities of the assessee and grant deduction on such interest u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. The PCIT

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

section 263 was handed over to me by the assessee. I was under the impression that ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 4 Sri.Sahadevan K. the appeal has to be filed only against the assessment order giving effect to the revision order. The assessee was under the impression that I had already filed the appeal. The non filing of the appeal was noticed

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

section 263 was handed over to me by the assessee. I was under the impression that ITA No.116 & 464/Coch/2019 4 Sri.Sahadevan K. the appeal has to be filed only against the assessment order giving effect to the revision order. The assessee was under the impression that I had already filed the appeal. The non filing of the appeal was noticed

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

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

section 115BB. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,00,000/-, being the difference in Gross Profit, on the ground that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction. The Learned CIT(A) failed to note that as per Para 6 of the order u/s 263, the Assessing Officer had been directed to redo the assessment and hence

M/S.FCI OEN CONNECTORS LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KCHI, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

section 263 of the Act by the Ld. Principal CIT, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 2 M/s.FCI OEN Connectors Limited 3. The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection in this regard. 4. We have perused the records. It transpires that the Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi passed an assessment order

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 139”. The assessee also submitted that though the amendment made effective from 01.04.2010 it is retrospectively applicable as it is curative in nature. The CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and accordingly upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thomas George Muthoot

SRI.ABDUL KAREEM,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, ALUVA

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

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

TDS of Rs.88,29,502 as refund. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 11.11.2016 on a total income of Rs.4,16,014. 4. Subsequently the CIT by invoking his revisionary powers issued notice u/s 263

VISUAL IQ TECHNO SERVICE INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, CORP. WARD-2(5), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

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

263 order and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. It was contended before the CIT that assessee purchased software which cannot be considered as purchase of copyright and royalty. Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) cannot

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

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