SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

147 of the Act, treated the income declared under the head “Income from Other Sources” as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, and therefore, applied the provisions of section 115-BBE for computing the tax liability of the assessee. It is evident from the record that while assessing the total income of the assessee, the AO carried

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

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The present appeal has come up for hearing in view of the Order, dated 16/06/2025, passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the appeal (ITA No. 31/2025) preferred by the Assessee. Assessment Year 2007-2008 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the order passed

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 27/03/2022. 2 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Ld.AO had information that the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs.16,88,000/- and received commission of Rs.91,02,400/- during the A.Y. 2015-16. However, the assessee had not filed any return

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 read with s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 read with s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 32(1) of the Act. The ld. AO is directed to verify the same and grant depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation claimed by the company. The subject matter of the appeal is the same as the matter raised in the proceedings u/s 263 which is barred as per Clause (c) of Explanation 1 of Section 263 of the Act and also by judicial decisions of various courts. 7. For these and other grounds that may be further adduced

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

147 taxmann.co. 402 (Delhi-Trib) by observing as under:- ‘’4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevant Fund Act. 5. Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settled by the decision

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASESSEMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 148 for A.Y.2009-10 are as 1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed