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.

251,000 12,417,000 59,956,609 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 5,400,000 7,125,000 7,150,000 6,338,000 4,885,525 4,310,000 35,208,525 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee 7,228,000 3,975,000 2,100,000 3.395,000 8,897,000 4,760,900 30,355,900 - Arun

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.

251,000 12,417,000 59,956,609 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 5,400,000 7,125,000 7,150,000 6,338,000 4,885,525 4,310,000 35,208,525 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee 7,228,000 3,975,000 2,100,000 3.395,000 8,897,000 4,760,900 30,355,900 - Arun

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.

251,000 12,417,000 59,956,609 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 5,400,000 7,125,000 7,150,000 6,338,000 4,885,525 4,310,000 35,208,525 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee 7,228,000 3,975,000 2,100,000 3.395,000 8,897,000 4,760,900 30,355,900 - Arun

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.

251,000 12,417,000 59,956,609 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 5,400,000 7,125,000 7,150,000 6,338,000 4,885,525 4,310,000 35,208,525 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee 7,228,000 3,975,000 2,100,000 3.395,000 8,897,000 4,760,900 30,355,900 - Arun

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.

251,000 12,417,000 59,956,609 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 5,400,000 7,125,000 7,150,000 6,338,000 4,885,525 4,310,000 35,208,525 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee 7,228,000 3,975,000 2,100,000 3.395,000 8,897,000 4,760,900 30,355,900 - Arun

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment. The same would: (a) prove that the omission has no bearing on the valuation of closing stock; and (b) that the goods sold at low rates were also, similarly, purchased at a lower price, proving the assessee’s case of the said sale being, as stated, of low grade varieties. Though, surely, it would still be at a loss