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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

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

41,018. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) assessing an income of Rs.1,03,48,780. Page 2 of 16 Subsequently, the CIT, Kozhikode, set aside the order of assessment u/s. 263 with a direction to make fresh assessment on the ground that the tax deducted at source by the assessee during

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-1 on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale of empty containers, were substantial questions of law and 16 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the High Court erred in dismissing the application of the Department on those questions and the High Court

MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the stay petition rendered infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act as being legally competent in view of section 143(1)(a) of the Act as amended by FA, 2021. 4.2 We may here also refer to the provision of section 80AC of the Act, which reads as under after its substitution by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2018: Deduction

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.

C, CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR (Heard in Hybrid Bench) Date of Hearing – 27/03/2025 Date of Order - 27/05/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 16/05/2024, passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

disallowing the assessee’s appeal contesting it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 135 days. The condonation petition accompanying the appeal, which is supported by a sworn affidavit dated 29.12.2022 by Shri Simon John

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

ALICE ARUN,CHENGANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

C Road, Thiruvalla. Chengannur, Kerala – 689 121. Vs. PAN: ADOPT9721C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 13-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 26/02/2024

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,00,80,910/- on the ground that the expenditure relating to research and development was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR vs. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Vs. Kannur Building Materials Co-Op. Society Ltd .......... Respondent No. C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [Pan: Aaaak7151K]

C 1741, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur 670561 [PAN: AAAAK7151K] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavban, Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 Assessee by: Shri Amaljith P.J., CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM 2. The instant appeal of the revenue

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

c) The section under which MAT credit has been allowed has been wrongly mentioned as 115AA instead of 115JAA. d) After 'balance payable', the section under which interest has been levied has been wrongly mentioned as 234D instead of 234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned as 21- 12-2014 instead

PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

1,33,41,539/- and Rs. 58,72,172/- respectively. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the incomes received by the society is in the course of its business and also the incomes received by the assessee are attributed to the business carried on by the assessee and therefore