KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

163, 164/Coch/2020 AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & 2011-12) The appellant is entitled to be granted deduction under Section 10A of the Act, going by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 717 (Kerala) & the order issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal following the said decision

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

163, 164/Coch/2020 AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & 2011-12) The appellant is entitled to be granted deduction under Section 10A of the Act, going by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 717 (Kerala) & the order issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal following the said decision

KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS P.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K

163, 164/Coch/2020 AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & 2011-12) The appellant is entitled to be granted deduction under Section 10A of the Act, going by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR 717 (Kerala) & the order issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal following the said decision

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee which culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 28/07/2023, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act making the following additions/disallowance: Addition of INR.38.24 Crores (under normal provisions): The (a) Assessing Officer observed that the as per the details of movement of NPA provisions furnished

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

KK MOHANDAS,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

163 taxmann.com 119 (Pune – Trib.). On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that search and seizure operations were continuously monitored by JCIT and, therefore, it cannot be said that JCIT accorded the approval u/s. 153D mechanically. He further submitted that there is no material brought on record to show that JCIT had given

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-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

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

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.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

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

163 (Mum.). As held by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Kanchan Tara Exports 138 TTJ 592, had the Assessing Officer given due rebate on account of quality and size of kernels, there could not have been any addition made by the Assessing Officer. Even while arriving at the sale price, the Assessing Officer