M/S.MUTHOOT CHITTY FUND,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri George George K

reassessment order, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.6,63,030. The reasoning of the Assessing

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 or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

Disallowance of terminal handling charges Rs.6,40,432 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order completed on 11.12.2014, the assessee preferred

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

Disallowance of terminal handling charges Rs.6,40,432 4. Aggrieved by the reassessment order completed on 11.12.2014, the assessee preferred

M/S.MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIR-1, KOTTAYAM

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

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

disallowance of replantation allowance against the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rehabilitation Plantation Ltd. (251 CTR 343). According to the Ld. AR, the CIT(A) must have quashed the reassessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment of unabated income. The expenditure incurred to earn the unaccounted income was disallowed.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "69C", "153D

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

reassessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act assessing the total income at Rs. 10,75,430/-. The AO made the disallowance

SRI.JOSEPHERSON ANTONY,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(2), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

reassessment an addition of Rs.7,00,462 was made. The expenses debited under profit and loss account as software support and maintenance expenses was disallowed

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2008 passed by DCIT, Circle 2(2), Ernakulam was dismissed. 14. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred the appeal challenging the reopening of the assessment and disallowance

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2008 passed by DCIT, Circle 2(2), Ernakulam was dismissed. 14. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred the appeal challenging the reopening of the assessment and disallowance

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.

disallowing the claim for 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

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(2)(d) of the Act in respect of this income. However, the AO disallowed

ACIT,, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.VEEKESY POLYMERS P. LTD, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

reassessment, admits that the assessee is eligible for deduction, but granted proportionate deduction by excluding job work estimated at 25% of the gross total income. The assessee has satisfied all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the I.T.Act and proportionate disallowance

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee filed return under Section 148 of the Act on 19/04/2012 claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act and in support obtained certificate in Form No. 56F from its auditors. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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 proceedings as appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of items not claimed in the original return of Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. income. According to the department a search under section 132, also cannot be utilized by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. The department, while disallowing

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 proceedings as appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of items not claimed in the original return of Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. income. According to the department a search under section 132, also cannot be utilized by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. The department, while disallowing

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 proceedings as appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of items not claimed in the original return of Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. income. According to the department a search under section 132, also cannot be utilized by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. The department, while disallowing

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 proceedings as appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of items not claimed in the original return of Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. income. According to the department a search under section 132, also cannot be utilized by the assessee to seek relief not claimed earlier. The department, while disallowing