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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by Finance

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 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

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.,KOLLAM vs. THE DICT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 1.1. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been explained that the Accountants Manager who had been responsible for handling Assessment Year 2010-2011 income tax matters was on Medical Leave prior

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.

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27/03/2022 assessing the total income at Rs.64,88,400/- wherein the Ld.AO made the following additions:- 1. Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(b) Rs. 1,70,000/- 2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs. 1,11,276/- 3. Disallowance of business promotion expenses Rs.2,25,123/- 4. Disallowance of 33% of vehicle expenses

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.com 202 SC)]. The relevant head note is reproduced as under:- Section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24) and 43B of the Income Tax Act – Employee’s contributions (PF/ESI) – High Court by impugned order held that Tribunal was correct in deleting disallowance

THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A(C) and, thus, u/s. 80P of the Act; and (v) section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is prima facie inapplicable. 5.2 There was before us no dispute, nor could possibly be, qua the first two propositions, advanced with reference to the decision in Dilipkumar and Co. Section

M/S OLAVANNA SERVICE CO-OP BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A(C) and, thus, u/s. 80P of the Act; and (v) section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is prima facie inapplicable. 5.2 There was before us no dispute, nor could possibly be, qua the first two propositions, advanced with reference to the decision in Dilipkumar and Co. Section

KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD 2 , KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A(C) and, thus, u/s. 80P of the Act; and (v) section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is prima facie inapplicable. 5.2 There was before us no dispute, nor could possibly be, qua the first two propositions, advanced with reference to the decision in Dilipkumar and Co. Section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have head both the sides on application for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Collector of Land Assessment Year 2014-2015 Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others