THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI vs. SRI.PRINCE JOSEPH, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains without sale.” 5. The Revenue being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the grounds raised and strongly supported the reassessment order dated 23.11.2017. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that the possession in question of the impugned property was never handed over ITA No.272/Coch/2018. 6 Sri.Prince Joseph

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

short term capital gains accrued to the assessee on the sale of property which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice-u/s 153C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c). In reply to the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee submitted that

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

short “the Act” hereinafter. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA Nos.393-399/Coch/2023. Federal Bank Limited. 2. We come to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA No.393/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012, raising inter alia the following substantive grounds:- “I. a) The Ld. CIT(4)) erred in upholding the validity of re- opening of assessment

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Short credit in A/cs. due to Under valuation made. Rs. 3,21,15,027 3.3 Though the assessee furnished several replies in the penalty proceedings; his case, as afore-noted, was a reiteration of that in the assessment proceedings. We may, nevertheless, reproduce his reply dated 10/10/2007 in the penalty proceedings: ‘In the original return of income the sales