SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction u/s. 80HHC by Rs. 125.88 (471.53 – 345.65) lakhs was explained to be in view of the reassessment proceedings, which

THOTTIPAL SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(5), THRISSUR

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 1448 of the Act. In response, the Assessee filed a return of income on 19/11/2021 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction

ALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.R 321,KODUNGALLUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with respect to the issue agitated before us

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has earned interest on fixed deposits and has claimed deduction u/s.80P

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year:2014-15

deducted tax at source only on an amount of Rs.1 lac. It is submitted during the course of the reassessment

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

deduction under Section 10B for the income from export of software. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Later, reassessment

KARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

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

deduction under Section SOP of the Act. It is noted that penalty under Sections 271B and 271F of the Act was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved-by the reassessment

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo\nassessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed\nsuch deduction

VIMALA HARIHARAN,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 1(1), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

deduction u/s.54F of the Act is allowable in respect of only one residential property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) challenging the very validity of initiation of reassessment

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R 689,ANAKALLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

deduction under Chapter VI-A. The return was I.T.A. No.382/COCH/2025 Avinissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd accompanied by audited financials filed manually in July 2019. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction

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

reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

reassessed. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

deducted and paid by the Appellant to the income tax department supported by the Exhibit P23 which is speaking evidence of the compliance followed by the Appellant. Hence, the order of the NFAC or the first assessment u/s 143(3) are not erroneous as contemplated in Section 263. G. The Appellant apprehends that reassessment

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

reassessment (Niranjan & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 153 (SC)). The inference of equal share in house property is, under the circumstances, valid. 4.3 We, however, find that the capital gain on which deduction

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

deduction thereby. It is the last limb which is under consideration, and qua which the assessee’s conduct is being examined with reference to the requirement of a true and full disclosure, which pre-empts any reassessment

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

deduction thereby. It is the last limb which is under consideration, and qua which the assessee’s conduct is being examined with reference to the requirement of a true and full disclosure, which pre-empts any reassessment

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction