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

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

65 and levied penalty of Rs. 17,73,475/- vide order dated 22.09.2022. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, invoking Explanation 3 inserted to section 271(1) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Chand

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

65 and levied penalty of Rs. 17,73,475/- vide order dated 22.09.2022. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, invoking Explanation 3 inserted to section 271(1) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Chand

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

65 and levied penalty of Rs. 17,73,475/- vide order dated 22.09.2022. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, invoking Explanation 3 inserted to section 271(1) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Chand

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

65 and levied penalty of Rs. 17,73,475/- vide order dated 22.09.2022. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, invoking Explanation 3 inserted to section 271(1) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Chand

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

65,230 and leave encashment of Rs.41,160 which were not paid before the due date of filing of return of income and hence the same are not allowable in terms of provisions of section 43B of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 26.12.2018 by making addition of Rs.6,32,442 determining total loss of assessee at Rs.22

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

65,230 and leave encashment of Rs.41,160 which were not paid before the due date of filing of return of income and hence the same are not allowable in terms of provisions of section 43B of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 26.12.2018 by making addition of Rs.6,32,442 determining total loss of assessee at Rs.22

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.

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman

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.

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman

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.

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman

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.

reassessment. In addition, it is held that in the light of the Supreme Court dictum in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the view expressed in Humboldt Wedag India (P.) Ltd. (supra) is per incuriam and, as such, not good law." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman