SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 read with ITA No. 895, 899/Coch/2022 (AY : 2017-18) Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The facts and circumstances of the two cases being the same, raising common issues for adjudication, the appeals per taken up together for hearing

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 read with ITA No. 895, 899/Coch/2022 (AY : 2017-18) Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The facts and circumstances of the two cases being the same, raising common issues for adjudication, the appeals per taken up together for hearing

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

147 or reassessment under section 153A, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of such reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (4) Where as a result of an order under

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

147 or reassessment under section 153A, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of such reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. Explanation.—[* * *] (4) Where as a result of an order under

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

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

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

69 and Rs.16,00,740/- on account of difference in books of accounts. The total income thus assessed was Rs.1,25,38,090/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and passed an order under section 271(1)(c) levying a penalty of Rs.40,70,658/-. The Assessing Officer has stated that the additional income of Rs.1,01,36,100/- declared

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

69 and Rs.16,00,740/- on account of difference in books of accounts. The total income thus assessed was Rs.1,25,38,090/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and passed an order under section 271(1)(c) levying a penalty of Rs.40,70,658/-. The Assessing Officer has stated that the additional income of Rs.1,01,36,100/- declared

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, , KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

reassessment was completed vide order dated 31.01.2003 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 1,63,03,51,760/-. The said order was appealed against before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 04.03.2004 partly allowed the appeal. On further appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide

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

DCIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S BABY MARINE INTERNATIONAL, KOLLAM

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

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

section, which is explained by the Board in the Circular no.387 dated 06.07.1984: "17.2. A proper audit for tax purposes would ensure that the books of accounts and other records are properly maintained, that they faithfully reflect the income of the tax payer and claims for deduction are correctly made by him. Such audit would also help in checking fraudulent