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

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

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

u/s. 153C r/w s. 144 on 28.12.2010. The Tribunal, in appeal, set aside the assessment for fresh consideration vide it’s order dated 10.07.2013 (in ITA Nos. 223 to 227/Coch/2013 / copy on record); the relevant part of which reads as: ‘4.1 In the case of V N Radhakrishnan, a similar contention was raised by the department that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KERALA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BHAVAN PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KERALA vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

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

147 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. A.O. without following the procedure of enquiry/assessment provided under section 142(1), 142(2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made

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

u/s. 147 was bad-in-law and reassessment so concluded not valid.” (emphasis, ours) 4. We may at the outset clarify two aspects. Firstly, the assessee’s COs, filed on 25/6/2020, though out of time by 3 days, were admitted as the delay is saved by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020

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

u/s. 147 was bad-in-law and reassessment so concluded not valid.” (emphasis, ours) 4. We may at the outset clarify two aspects. Firstly, the assessee’s COs, filed on 25/6/2020, though out of time by 3 days, were admitted as the delay is saved by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020

POPULAR MOTORWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2(5), KOCHI

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of tangible material. 5. On perusal of the record it emerges that assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 28/12/2016. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment: “(a) Subsequently on verifying the records it was found that

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

u/s. 69. This assumes relevance as the primary onus for such an addition is on the Revenue inasmuch as it is only on discovery of such an investment that its nature and source is liable to be explained, with an addition ensuing where the same is not found satisfactory. Absence of such challenge to the impugned additions

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

u/s. 69. This assumes relevance as the primary onus for such an addition is on the Revenue inasmuch as it is only on discovery of such an investment that its nature and source is liable to be explained, with an addition ensuing where the same is not found satisfactory. Absence of such challenge to the impugned additions