MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act be given retrospective application ITA Nos.64 & 65/Coch/2019 3 Sri.V.J.Francis. 4. In view of the above grounds and any other grounds advanced during the course of hearing, the order of the learned assessing officer may be negativated.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual

SRI.V.J.FRANCIS M/S.LISCO COIR TEX,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT,, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act be given retrospective application ITA Nos.64 & 65/Coch/2019 3 Sri.V.J.Francis. 4. In view of the above grounds and any other grounds advanced during the course of hearing, the order of the learned assessing officer may be negativated.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had also stated that penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(1) of the Act would be initiated separately. The AO had not specifically mentioned under which limb underreporting was done by the assessee in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case. The AO further disallowed

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

reassessment proceedings from time to time and had discussed the impugned issue with the AO. The assessee did not seek any reason before the AO and therefore cannot contend the reopening on this ground. The CIT(A) on merits held that claim of higher depreciation by the assessee is not justified. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

40(b) of the Act. On going through the additions made by the A.O., prima facie it appears that the A.O. has not taken any reference to seized materials as a result of search. We further noticed that the assessments for the assessment year 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 and the date of issue of notice

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

40(b) of the Act. On going through the additions made by the A.O., prima facie it appears that the A.O. has not taken any reference to seized materials as a result of search. We further noticed that the assessments for the assessment year 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 and the date of issue of notice

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

40(b) of the Act. On going through the additions made by the A.O., prima facie it appears that the A.O. has not taken any reference to seized materials as a result of search. We further noticed that the assessments for the assessment year 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 and the date of issue of notice