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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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 Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

disallowing any deduction and hence even on merits revision of order of AO dated 17-02-2021 is not called for.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, pertains to rectification of the revision order passed under section 263

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act but remitted before the due date of filing the return has to be allowed under Sect/on 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961. f) It is submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Pr. CIT in the order u/s 263 of the Act which is the basis for initiation

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

section 14A of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the Tribunal that if the Assessing Officer does not have power to reopen an assessment, which is already concluded, the CIT could not have exercised his powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act directing the A.O. to pass assessment making disallowance

GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

disallowed'. 3.2 Accordingly, a show-cause notice under Section 263 dated 02.03.2018 was issued by CIT to the Assessee proposing

KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kerala Shipping & Inalnd Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Navigtation Corporation C.R. Building, I.S. Pres Road 38/924-A, Udaya Nagar Road Kochi 682018 Vs. Gandhi Nagar Kochi 682020 [Pan: Aabck4818L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment with the following direction: “Hence, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 19/05/2021 is set aside to the Assessing Officer to consider the below matter: 1) For AY 2018-19 assessee had declared Rs.80,70,207/- as the interest Income (Income from other Source) in the return

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of Rs.71,07,988/- which is only in the nature of a provision. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment in para 2 nowhere raised such an issue of capital write off. We make it clear that we are dealing with an assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance u/s. 37(1) cannot be resorted to when the claim is made by the appellant u/s. 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 4. Attention is invited to a well-known legal maxim "generalibus specialia derogant", which clearly mentioned that ‘if a special provision is made on a certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions'. Section

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment. The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without jurisdictional rendering the entire proceeding as nullity.” 5.3 The above judgment

M/S.ACUMEN CAPITAL MARKET INDIA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 37/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acumen Capital Market Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate India Ltd., Ward-1(1), Kochi. S.T. Reddiar & Sons Bldg., 3Rd Floor, Veekshanam Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 035. [Pan: Aabcp 6449] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Shri Shantham Bose, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2018 O R D E R

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Thus there was no error in the assessment order and hence the order under section 263

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). The AO subsequently passed an order u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 disallowing a sum of Rs.7

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities falls within the residual clause of Section 2(15) of the Income

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

263 of the Act which reads as under:- “"2. In your case, for the AY 2017-18, assessment was completed on 11/10/2019 accepting the return of income filed at 'NIL' income. On perusal of the details /documents available on records, it is noticed that your activities falls within the residual clause of Section 2(15) of the Income

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

263 of the Act. 1.3. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in setting aside the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to redo the assessment after verifying the facts and giving opportunity to be heard to the Appellant, ignoring the fact that