AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

9 Aroor Co-Operative Urbn Society situation when pre-assessment enquiry is carried forward by issuance of notice under section 142 (1) or when notice is issued on the premise of escaped assessment referable to section 148 of the IT Act. This position notwithstanding, when an assessment is subjected to first appeal or further appeals under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section 139. This argument has to be noticed to be rejected. 23. Proviso to section 147 provides that where any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 18 year by reason of the failure

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section 139. This argument has to be noticed to be rejected. 23. Proviso to section 147 provides that where any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 18 year by reason of the failure

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section 139. This argument has to be noticed to be rejected. 23. Proviso to section 147 provides that where any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 18 year by reason of the failure

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

139(1). The said date for the assessment year 2018/19 was 30/09/2018.” 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9 Ayurgreen Ayurveda Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed an amount

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9 of 19 10. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that in this case assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.03.2013. Subsequently it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference between opening and closing balance of the general fund amounting to Rs.64.22 lakhs, which had not been verified

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9 of 19 10. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that in this case assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.03.2013. Subsequently it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference between opening and closing balance of the general fund amounting to Rs.64.22 lakhs, which had not been verified

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9 of 19 10. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that in this case assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.03.2013. Subsequently it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference between opening and closing balance of the general fund amounting to Rs.64.22 lakhs, which had not been verified

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9 of 19 10. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that in this case assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.03.2013. Subsequently it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference between opening and closing balance of the general fund amounting to Rs.64.22 lakhs, which had not been verified

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation Wing Calicut that bank account No. 1331 in the name of M/S. M.P. Traders shows huge credits and all these are cheque payments from

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation, a non-cash ‘expenditure’, the excess cash outgo is limited to Rs.8.62 lakhs. The assessee has, thus, wrongly returned regular income at Rs. 11.19 lacs. Sure, and clearly, the financial statements being adverted to by us (PB pgs. 13-21) were not furnished along with the return of income. The same nevertheless are a part of the return

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor