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

5-9-2003, reported in (2003) 184 CTR (ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of section 153A coupled with Circular No.7 of 2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is initiated under section 132, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to such person for six assessment years and assess or reassess the total income

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

5-9-2003, reported in (2003) 184 CTR (ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of section 153A coupled with Circular No.7 of 2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is initiated under section 132, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to such person for six assessment years and assess or reassess the total income

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

5-9-2003, reported in (2003) 184 CTR (ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of section 153A coupled with Circular No.7 of 2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is initiated under section 132, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to such person for six assessment years and assess or reassess the total income

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

5-9-2003, reported in (2003) 184 CTR (ST) 33. On a combined reading of the provisions of section 153A coupled with Circular No.7 of 2003, it is undisputedly clear that when a search is initiated under section 132, the Assessing Officer shall issue a notice to such person for six assessment years and assess or reassess the total income

PANANCHERY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pananchery Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Pattikad, Pananchery, Thrissur 680652 [Pan: Aabap5815A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Thrissur .......... Respondent

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80(P) of the Act of Rs. 21,31,184/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

184. 10. In the light of the above discussion we delete the addition of Rs. 5,93,581/- made on account of lower profit ratio. In the result, ground of appeal No. 2 stands allowed. 11. Ground of appeal No. 3 challenges the disallowance on account of repairs charges of Rs. 20,952/-. It is stated that the claim made

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

184. 10. In the light of the above discussion we delete the addition of Rs. 5,93,581/- made on account of lower profit ratio. In the result, ground of appeal No. 2 stands allowed. 11. Ground of appeal No. 3 challenges the disallowance on account of repairs charges of Rs. 20,952/-. It is stated that the claim made

COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ADCIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground of non compliance of clause (b) and clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. This issue was the subject matter of appeals

BHAGHEERATHA ENGINEERING LTD, BHAGHEERATHA RESIDENCY,KACHERIPPADI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIR(1), KOCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhbhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1 Bhagheeratha Residency Kochi 682018 Banerji Road, Kacherippadi Vs. Ernakulam 682018 [Pan: Aabcb1386N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of assessee’s bad debt write off claim amounting to Rs. 4,63,93,184/- made in the course of assessment framed on 276.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Learned CIT-DR has drawn strong support from both the lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s impugned claim as a provision only than an actual write

M/S.INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JRG SECURITIES LTD),KOCHI vs. THE ADCIT, RANGE-1, OCHI, KOCHI

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

section 35D of the Act should be applied in its strict sense as it provides only for expenses like underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus being directly related to the IPO which has to be amortized over a period of 5 years. The Ld. AR submitted that out of the total amount

THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI vs. M/S.JRG SECURITIES(PRESENTLY INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD), KOCHI

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

section 35D of the Act should be applied in its strict sense as it provides only for expenses like underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus being directly related to the IPO which has to be amortized over a period of 5 years. The Ld. AR submitted that out of the total amount

INCOMETAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), ALAPPUZHA vs. ALLIANCE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, for statistical purpose the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 11. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, for statistical purpose the appeal is treated as allowed.” 4 ITA.No.847/COCH./2023 2.1. The Revenue’s contentions in light of these pleadings therefore is that the impugned sec.11 exemption had been rightly disallowed in assessee’s case once it had failed to file it’s audit report/Form-10B