M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

234B of the Act. 8.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DC IT and DRP have erred confirming the consequential levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act at Rs.5,60,56,5l0. Ground No.9 - Consequential levy of interest under section 2340 and 244A of the Act. 9.1 On the facts and circumstances

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

disallowed by the CIT(A) and department had accepted the same. It is well settled that department having accepted the CIT(A)'s order for earlier years cannot agitate the issue for the current assessment years, unless department is able to prove that for earlier years CIT(A) orders were accepted on account of low tax effect. Therefore

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

disallowed by the CIT(A) and department had accepted the same. It is well settled that department having accepted the CIT(A)'s order for earlier years cannot agitate the issue for the current assessment years, unless department is able to prove that for earlier years CIT(A) orders were accepted on account of low tax effect. Therefore

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

234B (3) of the Act. 3 I.T.A.Nos.122/Coch/2016 & 61/Coch/2016 3. We shall first take up for adjudication, the assessee’s appeal in I.T.A. 122/Coch/2016. I.T.A. No. 122/Coch/2016 (assessee’s appeal) The effective grounds raised in assessee’s appeal read as follows:- “2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) went wrong in not granting the deduction u/s. 54EC on the ground

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

disallowed proportionate interest expenses of INR.12,68,911/-. The DRP concurred with the Assessing Officer and rejected the objections raised by the Assessee. Before us it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that loans were granted on account of commercial expediency and out of interest free funds. However, we note that the Assessing Officer/DRP has returned concurrent finding that

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

234B the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same in view of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. As against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is now before us and raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The learned Commissioner went wrong in upholding the disallowance

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.10.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2018

disallowance of Rs. 5,04,42,154/- u/s. 37 and 68 of the Act. While completing the assessment the AO had not charged interest u/s. 234B of the Act and determined the tax liability. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act dated 26.08.2019 proposing to levy interest u/s. 234B of the Act. In response to the notice

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned as 21- 12-2014 instead of 21-2-2014. Vide demand notice dated 26-3-2015, the demand raised amounts to Rs.5,05,25,210/- However, as per our workings, the refund due amounts to Rs.31,65,41,606/- The above mentioned mistakes are apparent from