M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

119 of the Act, in supersession of earlier instructions/ guidelines on this subject, ere by directs that the cases selected for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2014-20 5 under CASS, on the basis of either AIR data or CIB information or for non re- conciliation with 26AS data, the scope of enquiry should be limited to verification these particular

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

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

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

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

119 of 2015 dated 19/09/2014 wherein it was held as follows: “3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Honourable supreme Court would definitely indicate that clause (v) of sub- Section (2) of Section 36 is not applicable for a claim raised under clause (viia) of section 36(1). However, it is submitted that

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

119 of 2015 dated 19/09/2014 wherein it was held as follows: “3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Honourable supreme Court would definitely indicate that clause (v) of sub- Section (2) of Section 36 is not applicable for a claim raised under clause (viia) of section 36(1). However, it is submitted that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

119 of 2015 dated 19/09/2014 wherein it was held as follows: “3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Honourable supreme Court would definitely indicate that clause (v) of sub- Section (2) of Section 36 is not applicable for a claim raised under clause (viia) of section 36(1). However, it is submitted that

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

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

119 TTJ (Kol.) 214 (ii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2010) 129 TTJ (Ahd.) 255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

119 TTJ (Kol.) 214 (ii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2010) 129 TTJ (Ahd.) 255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

119 TTJ (Kol.) 214 (ii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2010) 129 TTJ (Ahd.) 255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

119 TTJ (Kol.) 214 (ii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. DCIT(2010) 129 TTJ (Ahd.) 255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only