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

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

reassess the total income with respect to each assessment year following the six assessment years specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 153A.” We, therefore, dismiss ground No. 4. Thus, the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2011-12. So far ground Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

1 (SC); Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. v. CIT[2000] 244 ITR 496 (Ker)). The only opinion therefore on record is that by the Tribunal in Santhimadom Herbal City Trust (supra), which we have, for the reasons afore-stated, found as not commending itself for adoption, with there being no estoppel against law. The Tribunal, in rendering it’s said decision

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

1 (SC); Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. v. CIT[2000] 244 ITR 496 (Ker)). The only opinion therefore on record is that by the Tribunal in Santhimadom Herbal City Trust (supra), which we have, for the reasons afore-stated, found as not commending itself for adoption, with there being no estoppel against law. The Tribunal, in rendering it’s said decision

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

1 (SC); Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. v. CIT[2000] 244 ITR 496 (Ker)). The only opinion therefore on record is that by the Tribunal in Santhimadom Herbal City Trust (supra), which we have, for the reasons afore-stated, found as not commending itself for adoption, with there being no estoppel against law. The Tribunal, in rendering it’s said decision

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

1 (SC); Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. v. CIT[2000] 244 ITR 496 (Ker)). The only opinion therefore on record is that by the Tribunal in Santhimadom Herbal City Trust (supra), which we have, for the reasons afore-stated, found as not commending itself for adoption, with there being no estoppel against law. The Tribunal, in rendering it’s said decision

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

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

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula— (X-Y) where

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

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

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

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

b) of section 153A(1) wherein it is provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income for each of the six assessment years as mentioned above. The second proviso contemplates that if any assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

b) of the Act. Since this was the sole basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings resorted to, we hold that the reassessment resorted to in the present case was invalid, on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act, which specifically debarred resort to the same in view of registration having been granted