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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD, ATTINGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). contesting that the very initiation of reassessment proceedings are void in law as the AO had deliberately not followed the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and challenging the action of the AO in making protective addition in the hands

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 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 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act on 10.02.2022 ( penalty imposed Rs. 38,669/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded). 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty

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)

u/s. 150(1) of the Act and, accordingly, time limit of s. 153(6), where-under, as claimed, the impugned assessment ought to have been completed by 31.10.2014, would not apply. The assessee has before us raised this issue per an additional ground which, since admitted, reads as under: 1. It is respectfully submitted that assessment order is passed beyond

SRI UKKANDATH DILEEPAN,UROOB NAGAR, PALAPRAM vs. ACIT(OSD)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

nature of charges recovered by the appellant from the customers. (5) For these and other additional grounds of appeal that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) -12, Bengaluru is opposed to law and unsustainable in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC

UKKANDATH DILEEPAN,PALLAPURAM vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CALICUT

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

nature of charges recovered by the appellant from the customers. (5) For these and other additional grounds of appeal that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) -12, Bengaluru is opposed to law and unsustainable in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC

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

justice by him in making it’s assessments – wholly inconsistent though with the narrative in the assessment order, and which led the Tribunal to restore the matter back to his file for assessment/s afresh, no explanation, much less material/s, stand furnished in the second round by the assessee, whose challenge thereat is principally legal. This

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

justice by him in making it’s assessments – wholly inconsistent though with the narrative in the assessment order, and which led the Tribunal to restore the matter back to his file for assessment/s afresh, no explanation, much less material/s, stand furnished in the second round by the assessee, whose challenge thereat is principally legal. This

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would come in support to assessee on this issue. 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would come in support to assessee on this issue. 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would come in support to assessee on this issue. 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would come in support to assessee on this issue. 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would come in support to assessee on this issue. 8. The Ld.AR further submitted that

UNNIKRISHNAN. K,KUNNAMPALLY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

u/s. 147, is made where an income is found subsequent to assessment to have escaped assessment. It therefore necessarily includes the income already assessed. This is, as afore-noted, for the reason that the assessing SA No. 11/Coch/2023 Unnikrishnan Kunnampally v. ITO authority is thereby reassessing the assessee’s total income for the relevant year. The AO was thus duty

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 20.11.2007 for assessment year (AY) 2001-02, since upheld in first appeal vide Order dated 24.01.2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘CIT(A)’ for short). 2.1 At the outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, the ld. counsel for the assessee-appellant, would

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The present appeal has come up for hearing in view of the Order, dated 16/06/2025, passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the appeal (ITA No. 31/2025) preferred by the Assessee. Assessment Year 2007-2008 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the order passed