M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

6. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We have gone through the provisions of section 153C as well as the case laws as relied by learned A.R. Now the question before us whether the assessment made under section 153C in the case of the assessee

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

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

c) the income reassessed is greater than the income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (d) the amount of deemed total income assessed or reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis

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

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

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain income', no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other deductions/exemption provisions as contemplated are admissible unless the assessee furnishes a return of income

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other deductions/exemption provisions as contemplated are admissible unless the assessee furnishes a return of income

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other deductions/exemption provisions as contemplated are admissible unless the assessee furnishes a return of income

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other deductions/exemption provisions as contemplated are admissible unless the assessee furnishes a return of income

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

C- Deductions in respect of certain income’, no deduction shall be allowed to them. Further, the provisions of section 80AC deal with deductions not to be allowed unless return of income is furnished and as per the said provisions, no deduction under section 80IA or other deductions/exemption provisions as contemplated are admissible unless the assessee furnishes a return of income

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

C., CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the dismissal of his appeal contesting the assessment under section 147 r/w s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the Assessee which culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 28/07/2023, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act making the following additions/disallowance: Addition of INR.38.24 Crores (under normal provisions): The (a) Assessing Officer observed that the as per the details of movement of NPA provisions furnished

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

c) the income reassessed is greater than the income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment; (d) the amount of deemed total income assessed or reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. I.T.A. No.524/Coch/2018 r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: 1) Surat City Gymkhana vs. DCIT (254 ITR 733) (Guj.) 2) Chirec Education society vs. ACIT (354 ITR 605) (AP) 3) CIT vs. Kamala Town