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

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

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

3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S APPOLLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

13 Appeal effect order passed 20 Feb 2017 7,39,58,580 3,82,73,565 by AO u/s 250 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 20/02/2017 post CIT(A) order dated 30/12/2016 14 Rectification application 08 Mar 2017 7,39,58,580 3,82,73,565 filed and disposed off by ld.Assessing Officer ITA No.53/Coch/2017. 10 M/s.Appollo Tyres Limited

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment may be made shall apply to a re-assessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33-A, section 33-B, section 66 or section

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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

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

3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “The Act”). Prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, section 147 reads as under: “147. Income escaping assessment. –If— (a) The Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission

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

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

reassess his total income in respect of each of six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 which search is conducted. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s. 143(3

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

reassess his total income in respect of each of six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 which search is conducted. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s. 143(3

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

reassess his total income in respect of each of six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 which search is conducted. Thus, after going through the seized material as well as documents collected during the search u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments u/s. 143(3

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

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

3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i) in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a) if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) in a case where no return

THE CHOICE FOUNDATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

13(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had held that nothing contained ITA No.20/Coch/2017. 7 M/s.The Choice Foundation. in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the income assessed

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

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

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

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this

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

3) CIT vs. Kamala Town Trust (279 ITR 89) (All.) 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per section 139(4A) of the Act, it is mandatory for the assessee to furnish return of income under section 139(1) of the Act so as to avail exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with this