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

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)

250, 254, 260, 262, 263, or 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act; (iii) where, in the case of a firm, an assessment is made on a partner of the firm in consequence of an assessment made on the firm under section 147. Explanation

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

6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161]. 5.2 Section 234A reads as follows: Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub- section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, is furnished after the due date

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

6 (Kar) [277 Taxman 161]. 5.2 Section 234A reads as follows: Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub- section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, is furnished after the due date

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts CIT(A) was right in disallowing the claim u/s.47 (XIII) of the IT Act, since the appellant had complied with all the requirements

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts CIT(A) was right in disallowing the claim u/s.47 (XIII) of the IT Act, since the appellant had complied with all the requirements

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 -

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment year 2018-19, date of order 21/07/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Trivandrum, (henceforth, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, date of order 29/03/2024. 2 A&B Associates

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. The order

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/-.

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/-. 3. The brief facts of the case

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/02/2013, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The present appeal has come up for hearing in view of the Order, dated

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 1.1. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay it has been explained that the Accountants Manager who had been responsible for handling Assessment Year 2010-2011 income tax matters was on Medical Leave prior

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