THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallow those expenses which have nexus to tax free/exempt income. The Ld. AR submitted that for the purpose of application of provisions of section 14A of the Act, nexus between the expense and the income is the first and foremost condition to be satisfied. It was submitted that the investments were made prior to 2004 and were acquired on account

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

disallow those expenses which have nexus to tax free/exempt income. The Ld. AR submitted that for the purpose of application of provisions of section 14A of the Act, nexus between the expense and the income is the first and foremost condition to be satisfied. It was submitted that the investments were made prior to 2004 and were acquired on account

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

149,\n151 and 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or\nbooks of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section\n132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person\nrequiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice

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

149, 151 and 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or books of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice

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

149, 151 and 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or books of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice

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

149, 151 and 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or books of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice

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

149, 151 and 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132, or books of account or other documents, or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, after 31-5-2003, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish, within such period, as may be specified in the notice

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

RAMLA HAMEED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the Assessing

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

149, and 151 of the Act, alleging non-compliance with mandatory conditions. 5. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly rejected the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee in the absence of documentary support. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM

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

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

149 (Karnataka), the AR submitted that no disallowance is called for. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that there was no employer – employee relationship between the respondent-assessee company and the consultant Doctors accordingly in holding that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED , ERNAKULAM

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

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

149 (Karnataka), the AR submitted that no disallowance is called for. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that there was no employer – employee relationship between the respondent-assessee company and the consultant Doctors accordingly in holding that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM

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

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

149 (Karnataka), the AR submitted that no disallowance is called for. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that there was no employer – employee relationship between the respondent-assessee company and the consultant Doctors accordingly in holding that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. ASTER DM HEALTHCARE LIMITED , ERNAKULAM

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

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

149 (Karnataka), the AR submitted that no disallowance is called for. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that there was no employer – employee relationship between the respondent-assessee company and the consultant Doctors accordingly in holding that

KUTHUR JOHNY VINUFRANCIES,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09

149,350) represented liability for services, and no loan had been credited in the books during the relevant period. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted additions of Rs.2,94,843/-. However, for the remaining loans received in FY 2007-08, the assessee failed to furnish complete bank statements and ITRs of lenders despite specific opportunity under Section

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand, and the ground of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We accordingly find no merit in the ground of the Revenue on this issue as well.” The issues raised by the AO in his order are materially identical to that

THE DIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) has no legs to stand, and the ground of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We accordingly find no merit in the ground of the Revenue on this issue as well.” The issues raised by the AO in his order are materially identical to that

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

disallowed by the appellant itself and the balance of Rs. 79,12,974/- was incurred on the following items: - Payment to Confederation of Indian Industry 5,00,000 for Conducting Job Fest in Chavara Payment to KSEDC Ltd for Electronic Toilet 17,00,000 for Government/Aided Schools in Chavara Payment to Gender Rest – 2012 10,00,000 Expense incurred

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before