SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (g) the income assessed or reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,—.. (4) – (6

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

6 provides for various information including deductions under section 80IA. Therefore, merely because, separate schedule is provided for deductions under chapter VI-A, it cannot be construed that even in a case of filing return of income under section 153A, the appellant can make a fresh claim. Further, once the assessment is abated, the original return which has been filed

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

6 provides for various information including deductions under section 80IA. Therefore, merely because, separate schedule is provided for deductions under chapter VI-A, it cannot be construed that even in a case of filing return of income under section 153A, the appellant can make a fresh claim. Further, once the assessment is abated, the original return which has been filed

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

6 provides for various information including deductions under section 80IA. Therefore, merely because, separate schedule is provided for deductions under chapter VI-A, it cannot be construed that even in a case of filing return of income under section 153A, the appellant can make a fresh claim. Further, once the assessment is abated, the original return which has been filed

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

6 provides for various information including deductions under section 80IA. Therefore, merely because, separate schedule is provided for deductions under chapter VI-A, it cannot be construed that even in a case of filing return of income under section 153A, the appellant can make a fresh claim. Further, once the assessment is abated, the original return which has been filed

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

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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 as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. 3.2 Section 234B of the Act provides for levy of interest on the shortfall in advance tax, reckoned with reference

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

6 provides for various information including deductions under\nsection 80IA. Therefore, merely because, separate schedule is provided for\ndeductions under chapter VI-A, it cannot be construed that even in a case of filing\nreturn of income under section 153A, the appellant can make a fresh claim. Further,\nonce the assessment is abated, the original return which has been filed

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (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 HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (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

MAMMAYIL THEKKEPURAYIL MANSHOOR,KANNUR vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

reassessment proceedings were initiated after expiry of a period of 6 years and also for the reason that the AO had no reason to believe that the income charged to tax escaped assessment as he himself 4 Mammayil Thekepurayil Manshoor resorted to protective assessment. On merits he submitted that in view of the admitted fact that the appellant

MAMMAYIL THEKKEPURAYIL MANSHOOR,KANNUR vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

reassessment proceedings were initiated after expiry of a period of 6 years and also for the reason that the AO had no reason to believe that the income charged to tax escaped assessment as he himself 4 Mammayil Thekepurayil Manshoor resorted to protective assessment. On merits he submitted that in view of the admitted fact that the appellant

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s submissions and completed the reassessment with adverse findings. 6

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

Sections 143(2) and 142(1), the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s submissions and completed the reassessment with adverse findings. 6

EDATHURUTHYKARAN PAVOO GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACITCIRCLE-1, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Edathuruthykaran Pavoo George Vs Acit, Circle - 1(1) 40/2102, Market Road Kochi Ernakulam 682035 Pan – Abzpg4486E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Athira Anil, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is Running A Proprietary Concern In The Name Of M/S. Novelty Textiles. The Proprietary Concern Is A Wholesale Dealer In Textile Products. For Ay 2009-10 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,83,44,875/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 26.12.2011 By Assessing The Total Income At Rs.2,89,52,150/-. Subsequently Notice Was Issued

reassessment order by stating that the same was initiated on mere change of opinion. 5. The learned D.R. was unable to controvert the submissions made by the learned A.R. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The original assessment for AY 2009-10 was completed on 28.09.2009 under Section