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

150 ITR 703 (Mad), the burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan; and the genuineness of the transactions, is so inspite the entries to that effect in his account books. It is only after he establishes these things, at least prima facie, that the onus shifts

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

150 ITR 703 (Mad), the burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan; and the genuineness of the transactions, is so inspite the entries to that effect in his account books. It is only after he establishes these things, at least prima facie, that the onus shifts

EDATHURUTHYKARAN PAVOO GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACITCIRCLE-1, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

150/-. Subsequently notice was issued 2 Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 21.03.2014. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs.29,40,000/- on advertisement and sale promotion. According to the AO the same is in the nature of donations. The assessment was completed under

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives etc. whereas

ALZARAFA TRAVEL & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , KOCHI

Accordingly, Additional\nGround No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025\nis allowed

150/-. The appeal preferred by the\nassessee against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed as\nbeing barred by limitation by the Commission of Income Tax\n(Appeals) without examining the merits of the case. In appeal\npreferred by the Assessee before the Tribunal, vide order dated\n04/02/2019 [passed in ITA No.518 to 523/Coch/2018, Assessment Year\n2009

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

reassessment for those years. Indeed, it is liable to be challenged on merits even for other years. This is as non-eligibility to claim depreciation for one year would not by itself translate into non-eligibility for the subsequent year; the twin conditions for a valid claim of depreciation – ‘ownership’ and ‘put to use’, being required to be satisfied

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 147 read with sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 04.03.2015 for assessment years (AYs.) 2005- 2006 & 2008-09, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide his orders of even date (05.01.2023). The appeals raising a common issue, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 147 read with sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 04.03.2015 for assessment years (AYs.) 2005- 2006 & 2008-09, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide his orders of even date (05.01.2023). The appeals raising a common issue, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order

MAMMAYIL THEKKEPURAYIL MANSHOOR,KANNUR vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and also there was no reason to believe that income escaped assessment to tax. The contention of the appellant that the assessment is barred by limitation cannot be accepted for the reason that the case of the appellant falls within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act which reads

MAMMAYIL THEKKEPURAYIL MANSHOOR,KANNUR vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and also there was no reason to believe that income escaped assessment to tax. The contention of the appellant that the assessment is barred by limitation cannot be accepted for the reason that the case of the appellant falls within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act which reads

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First