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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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