SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

46 to 51/Coch/2014 in the case of Shri O.G.Sunil is addition on account of unexplained investments. The issue is identical to the issues discussed in ITA No.45/Coch/2014 for the assessment year 2002-03. While dealing with the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 we have found that out of the total addition made on account of unexplained investments

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

10,650/- in any of his bank accounts or bank accounts of the associated concerns. Later, it was stated that the assessee’s brother, an NRI operated the Bank account and it was closed before the receipt of notice of levy of penalty. However, the assessee concealed the fact of unexplained amount deposited in the South Indian Bank

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

46,327/-. 5. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs. 14,50,370/- after making the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's personal expenditure. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

46,327/-. 5. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs. 14,50,370/- after making the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's personal expenditure. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

46,327/-. 5. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs. 14,50,370/- after making the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's personal expenditure. 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

u/s. 148 of the Act by treating the entire contract receipts as income of the appellant. No doubt, the AO was justified in resorting to best judgement assessment. However, the approach adopted by the AO in taxing the entire contract receipts as taxable income is unreasonable and arbitrary. Even in the case of best judgement assessment, assessment of income should

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

u/s. 148 of the Act by treating the entire contract receipts as income of the appellant. No doubt, the AO was justified in resorting to best judgement assessment. However, the approach adopted by the AO in taxing the entire contract receipts as taxable income is unreasonable and arbitrary. Even in the case of best judgement assessment, assessment of income should