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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee filed return under Section 148 of the Act on 19/04/2012 claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act and in support obtained certificate in Form No. 56F from its auditors. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Act. Before

SRI.E. NOUSHAD,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

SRI. E.NOUSHAD,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

SRI.E.NOUSHAD,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

v. ITO\n(2022) 440 ITR 359 (Bom). The learned CIT(A) also rejected the\nargument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any\nincriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of\nHon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016)\n75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

v. ITO\n(2022) 440 ITR 359 (Bom). The learned CIT(A) also rejected the\nargument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any\nincriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of\nHon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016)\n75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

v. ITO\n(2022) 440 ITR 359 (Bom). The learned CIT(A) also rejected the\nargument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any\nincriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of\nHon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016)\n75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya