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

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

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

reopening of assessment and it is only a change of opinion, accordingly by placing above judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we quash the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 also. A.Y. 2013-14: 12. Ground No.2 in this appeal ITA No.91/Coch/2022 is as follows:- 2. “The appellant had claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount that

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Assessing Officer is indeed justified in invoking his 148 reopening jurisdiction in these peculiar facts. The assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground fails in very terms therefore. 5. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to reverse both lower authorities action making u/s.14A read with Rule 8D disallowance

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

reopen the assessment proceedings for the assessment years impacted. Besides, and needless to say, if the assessment or re- assessment for the preceding AY 2010-11 serves to disallow

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.

reopening the assessment. The AO is also directed to keep in mind the ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 7 of 18 decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. 8. In the appeal for AY 2011-12, the assessee has contented the impugned issue only on legal grounds and accordingly we have adjudicated only

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.

reopening the assessment. The AO is also directed to keep in mind the ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 7 of 18 decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. 8. In the appeal for AY 2011-12, the assessee has contented the impugned issue only on legal grounds and accordingly we have adjudicated only

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.

reopening the assessment. The AO is also directed to keep in mind the ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 7 of 18 decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. 8. In the appeal for AY 2011-12, the assessee has contented the impugned issue only on legal grounds and accordingly we have adjudicated only

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

reopening of the assessment and disallowance u/s. 43B. 15. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a partnership

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

reopening of the assessment and disallowance u/s. 43B. 15. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a partnership

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

disallowance on account of excess wastage and depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

reopen the assessment or\nreassess the assessment already made without following the procedure under section\n147 or section 148 and determine the total income of the assessee. The arguments\nraised by the assessee, in light of the provisions of section 153A(1)(a) and Form\nITR-6, that the moment the assessee files a return in response to section 153A

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

Disallowance of 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

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

Disallowance of 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