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

4), for the first time, in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 153A, in pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted under section 132. Therefore, to answer the questions referred to, this Special Bench, it is necessary to understand the provisions of section 132 and the consequent procedure of assessment under section 153A

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

4), for the first time, in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 153A, in pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted under section 132. Therefore, to answer the questions referred to, this Special Bench, it is necessary to understand the provisions of section 132 and the consequent procedure of assessment under section 153A

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

4), for the first time, in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 153A, in pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted under section 132. Therefore, to answer the questions referred to, this Special Bench, it is necessary to understand the provisions of section 132 and the consequent procedure of assessment under section 153A

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings are initiated after a prescribed threshold period, i.e., 4 years (from the end of the relevant assessment Page 4 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. year),qua returns which have been subject to regular assessment, i.e., under section

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings are initiated after a prescribed threshold period, i.e., 4 years (from the end of the relevant assessment Page 4 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. year),qua returns which have been subject to regular assessment, i.e., under section

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R 689,ANAKALLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019, determining a total income of Rs.1,56,08,560. During the proceedings, it was observed that the assessee failed to furnish the audit report within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1), without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.1,50,000 was imposed

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings was sought to be reopened after expiry of a period of 4 years. Proviso to section 149 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time, provides that no assessment shall be reopened after the expiry of a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is failure

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

139(1) or in response to notices under section 148. Since, there was no response to notices issued during reassessment proceedings, resulting in ex parte ITA Nos. 134 to 137 & 138/Coch/2025 & SA Nos. 19 to 22 & 23/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan assessments. Even during penalty appeal proceedings, the assessee remained non-compliant, except for filing an additional ground much later challenging

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

139(1) or in response to notices under section 148. Since, there was no response to notices issued during reassessment proceedings, resulting in ex parte ITA Nos. 134 to 137 & 138/Coch/2025 & SA Nos. 19 to 22 & 23/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan assessments. Even during penalty appeal proceedings, the assessee remained non-compliant, except for filing an additional ground much later challenging