M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

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

26] ■ Consequent to notice under section 153A, the earlier return filed for the purpose of assessment which is pending would be treated as non-est in law. Further, section 153A(1) itself provides filing of the return consequent to notice, the provisions of the Act will apply to the return of income so filed. Consequently, the return filed under section

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

26] ■ Consequent to notice under section 153A, the earlier return filed for the purpose of assessment which is pending would be treated as non-est in law. Further, section 153A(1) itself provides filing of the return consequent to notice, the provisions of the Act will apply to the return of income so filed. Consequently, the return filed under section

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

26] ■ Consequent to notice under section 153A, the earlier return filed for the purpose of assessment which is pending would be treated as non-est in law. Further, section 153A(1) itself provides filing of the return consequent to notice, the provisions of the Act will apply to the return of income so filed. Consequently, the return filed under section

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

26] ■ Consequent to notice under section 153A, the earlier return filed for the purpose of assessment which is pending would be treated as non-est in law. Further, section 153A(1) itself provides filing of the return consequent to notice, the provisions of the Act will apply to the return of income so filed. Consequently, the return filed under section

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

26]\n■ Consequent to notice under section 153A, the earlier return filed for the purpose of\nassessment which is pending would be treated as non-est in law. Further, section\n153A(1) itself provides filing of the return consequent to notice, the provisions of\nthe Act will apply to the return of income so filed. Consequently, the return filed\nunder

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

26,95,839/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts

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

26,95,839/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts

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

26,95,839/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts

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

26,95,839/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the was issued.” 4. The contention of Ld. A.R. is that the AO while recording the reasons as above has not alleged that there was any failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam