THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

119 (Trib.) (Delhi.) vi. Paranjape Autocast (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1090 & 1091 (Trib) (Pune) of 2010, dated 25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin International Airport

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

119 (Trib.) (Delhi.) vi. Paranjape Autocast (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1090 & 1091 (Trib) (Pune) of 2010, dated 25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin International Airport

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

119 taxmann.com 362 (Jaipur). #*[2021] 92 ITR (Trib) 332 (Mumbai); [2022] 136 taxmann.com 42 (Mumbai). #*#[2022] 139 taxmann.com 286 (Jaipur). Page No : 0641 case is that of creation, whereas, the second is that of "transfer" entitled to the right in action. 18. In view of the above, the provisions of section 56(2) would not be applicable to the issue

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence