M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

28-3-2003 passed under section 263 setting aside the assessment order dated 26-3-2002 passed under section 143 read with section 147 by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation under section 263(2). 5.5 On appeal filed by the Revenue u/s 260A of the I.T.Act, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “Sub-section

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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 as referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. 3.2 Section 234B of the Act provides for levy of interest on the shortfall in advance tax, reckoned with reference

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

28] ■ The assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of assessee stood completed vide order dated

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

28] ■ The assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of assessee stood

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

28] ■ The assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of assessee stood

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

28] ■ The assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of assessee stood

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

28] ■ The assessment or reassessment made in pursuance to section 153A is not a de novo assessment and, therefore, it was not open to the assessee to claim and be allowed Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. such deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of assessee stood

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 147 which reads as follows: “Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment." [Emphasis Supplied] 6.6 Further, the Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case reported

ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 147 which reads as follows: “Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment." [Emphasis Supplied] 6.6 Further, the Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case reported

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

section 147 of the Act. Though not relevant for our purpose, we may yet state that the charge of improper disclosure did not find favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court inasmuch as there was no reference thereto either in the reasons recorded u/s.148(2) or in the notice u/s. 148(1) of the Act, i.e., what had been opined

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

section 147 of the Act. Though not relevant for our purpose, we may yet state that the charge of improper disclosure did not find favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court inasmuch as there was no reference thereto either in the reasons recorded u/s.148(2) or in the notice u/s. 148(1) of the Act, i.e., what had been opined

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

DCIT,, ERNAKULAM vs. JOJO FROZEN FOODS P.LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

28,024 customers 7.3 In the original assessment order completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, the taxability of freezer security deposits was considered and addition to the income was made by the A.O. The observation of the A.O. in original assessment reads as follows: “2.7 In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that dealer deposit become

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

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

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

147 of the I.T.Act vide order dated 24.12.2007 by assessing the total income at Rs.2,43,52,680. Aggrieved by the reassessment, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. The Revenue being aggrieved, filed further appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT vide its order dated 21.10.2011 in ITA No.14/Coch/2009 restored

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section