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

8) and 2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

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

8) and 2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

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

8) and 2(40)), where the same is subsequently set aside for fresh assessment. Despite it being subsequently set aside, the Hon'ble Court held it to be the date of the original order. The reason that found favour with the Hon'ble Court, as a reading of it’s detailed judgment shows, is that once the tax paid, either

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

13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 for AY 2012-13 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts

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

13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 for AY 2012-13 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts

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

13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 for AY 2012-13 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts

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

13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 267/Coch/2021 for AY 2012-13 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts

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)

13,14,280/- relying on s. 150(1) of the Act, which provision reads as under: [ Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc. 150. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation

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 culminated with passing of Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2022, whereby an addition of INR.3,24,13,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act 2 Assessment Year 2013-2014 treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained income. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) contending that the Assessing Officer

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss as declared. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss as declared. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total

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.

8,415,500 • 47,168,372 - Arun Raj, Son of Assessee 500,000 -- - 4,950,000 13,900,000 13,544,460 32,894,460 - Pooja Raj, Daughter of Assessee -- -- 5,638.000 2,000,000 2,600,000 1,000,000 11.238,000 Sub Total