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

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

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

147 before appeals. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. K. Mahim reported in 15 Taxman 557 has held that mere filing of return would not exonerate assessee from liability to penalty, nor filing of revised return after the departmental investigation would absolve the assessee from penalty.” 4. The CIT(A) observed that

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

147 before appeals. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. K. Mahim reported in 15 Taxman 557 has held that mere filing of return would not exonerate assessee from liability to penalty, nor filing of revised return after the departmental investigation would absolve the assessee from penalty.” 4. The CIT(A) observed that

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

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

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-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

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-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

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

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

147 without making any adjustments to the returned total income. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax vide notice dated 5/03/2015 proposed revision u/s 263 and passed the order dated 18/03/2015 setting aside the assessment order for fresh verification on the issue of allowing the exemption u/s 10(37). 3. The assessing officer assessed the long term capital gain vide order

SAHADEVAN K ,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

147 without making any adjustments to the returned total income. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax vide notice dated 5/03/2015 proposed revision u/s 263 and passed the order dated 18/03/2015 setting aside the assessment order for fresh verification on the issue of allowing the exemption u/s 10(37). 3. The assessing officer assessed the long term capital gain vide order

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