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

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of four Appeals by the Assessee agitating the part-allowance of it’s appeals contesting it’s assessments under section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years

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

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of four Appeals by the Assessee agitating the part-allowance of it’s appeals contesting it’s assessments under section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment

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

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kohi [CIT(A)] dated 25.10.2021 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed

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

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kohi [CIT(A)] dated 25.10.2021 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed

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

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kohi [CIT(A)] dated 25.10.2021 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed

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

D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kohi [CIT(A)] dated 25.10.2021 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 13 to 2016-17. 2. Since identical issues and facts are involved in these appeals, they are heard together and disposed

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

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee for two consecutive assessment years (AYs.), i.e., AYs. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, agitating the Order dated 22.06.2022 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Cochin [CIT(A), or the first appellate authority (FAA)], partly allowing it’s appeals contesting

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

D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee for two consecutive assessment years (AYs.), i.e., AYs. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, agitating the Order dated 22.06.2022 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Cochin [CIT(A), or the first appellate authority (FAA)], partly allowing it’s appeals contesting

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)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order, dated 25/03/2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NFAC’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years where the AO has reason to believe income having escaped assessment. The same, again, a part of well-settled law, is clarified to be in respect of only primary facts [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)]. This

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years where the AO has reason to believe income having escaped assessment. The same, again, a part of well-settled law, is clarified to be in respect of only primary facts [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC)]. This

A & B ASSOCIATES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by directing the AO to -

11 A&B Associates could reasonably be inferred. Also the TDS credit was not granted, though income was taxed on the basis of 26AS. All the details could be easily gathered from M/s Idea Cellular Lad. before proceeding us 144 of the Act. Nothing was done by the assessing officer. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not considered

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)

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 04.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

D E R Per Bench : These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos.393 to 399/Coch/2023 for the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 arise against the CIT (Appeal) / NFAC, as many DIN & Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051192560(1), 1051191040(1), 1051190237(1), 1051189723(1), 1051189258(1)1051187623(1) & 1051188629(1), all dated 23.03.2023, respectively, in proceedings u/s