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

2 to subsection (1) of Section 263, as the order of AO has considered the TDS deducted and paid by the Appellant

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)

TDS claimed in the year under consideration when same reflected in form 26AS. Therefore, in our considered view there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by this. Thus, the condition precedent for invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act fails on the issue on hand. 16. Likewise, we note the AO in the body of assessment shown

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

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

2 of 8 Ground No. 1 - Revision proceedings have been initiated under section 263 on account of issues that are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue 1.1. The learned PCIT has erred in not considering the fact that the issues relied on for initiating the revision proceedings neither appears to be a mistake in law nor prejudicial

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

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

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

2) has been issued to the assessee there is lack of enquiry by the AO and therefore initiation of proceedings under Section 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

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

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

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

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

TDS being deducted by the assessee. Respectfully following the Supreme Court decision, I hold that there was no liability for the appellant to deduct tax at source u/s 195( 1) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 55,78,022/- is deleted.” 5. From the above order of the CIT(A) we observed that he has done a good reasoned order

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