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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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.

45,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.0 on account of alleged cash payments for acquisition of immovable properties overlooking the submissions and details filed by the Appellant. 11. That, without prejudice to the above, the Ld. A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not having considered in totality all the evidence placed before them by the Appellant which

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

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

section 54 of the Act at Rs.91,05,096 in respect of construction of a residential house during the relevant year against the capital gain arising to her on sale of 3 pieces of land sold during March, 2013 to November, 2013. The claim was, admitting her mistake inasmuch as the capital asset/s sold was not a residential house, requested

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

45,03,400\n271(1)(c)\n2009-10\n6,00,730\n12,87,197\n271(1)(c)\n2010-11\n8,11,240\n10,71,240\n271(1)(c)\n2011-12\n9,99,970\n9,99,970\nNil\n2012-13\n20,47,120\n22,47,120 271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral

THE ACIT, KOZHIKODE vs. SHRI K.C.JAMES, GOA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

45), could only be in relation to an incriminating material/s found and seized during search proceedings. ITANos. 53&54/Coch/2022 & CO Nos. 01 &02/Coch/2023 (AYs. 2011-12 & 2013-14) K.C. James vs. Asst. CIT The only addition in the instant case/s is in respect of deemed dividend, rejecting the assessee’s explanation, since accepted by the ld. CIT(A), that

THE ACIT, KOZHIKODE vs. SHRI.. K.C.JAMES, GOA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

45), could only be in relation to an incriminating material/s found and seized during search proceedings. ITANos. 53&54/Coch/2022 & CO Nos. 01 &02/Coch/2023 (AYs. 2011-12 & 2013-14) K.C. James vs. Asst. CIT The only addition in the instant case/s is in respect of deemed dividend, rejecting the assessee’s explanation, since accepted by the ld. CIT(A), that

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