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.

1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the IT Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage of such proceedings could be treated

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

b) “public company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 15 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. of 1956); (c) “Government company” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);” 24. There is no dispute that the Assessee is eligible to claim

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

1, the Supreme Court observed at Page 694 as under :- "The above observations do not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made, or that the ground became

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula— (X-Y) where

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

13. It lastly emerges that their lordships very judgement has also restored the assessee’s grounds identical to ground Nos. 5 & 6 back to the Assessing Officer as follows : “4.1 Substantial question no.(b) deals with the claim relating to bad debts and is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

B' -Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1, Udupi Vs. Ananda Marakala* [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06] dated SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 c. Hon'ble SC in the case of Allied Motors P Ltd, Extrusions Ltd d. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1993] 88 ITR 192 (SC). e. Apex Court judgment in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation