AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

c) Intimation/order u/s 143(1) was passed on 16.03.2018 assessing Total Income at Rs.11,36,060/-. The deduction claimed u/s 80P of Rs.4,21,117/- was allowed. The 'Exempt Income' claimed of Rs.11,36,060/- was disallowed and adjustment/addition was made in the order intimation u/s 143( 1) of the Act. 3 Aroor Co-Operative Urbn Society d) The submissions

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

11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly.” 16.1 In view of the above judgement of coordinate bench, we allow the claim

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

11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly.” 16.1 In view of the above judgement of coordinate bench, we allow the claim

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

11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly.” 16.1 In view of the above judgement of coordinate bench, we allow the claim

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

11(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, in the light of the various judicial pronouncements, and CBDT circular cited supra, we hold that CIT is not justified in invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and the same is quashed. It is ordered accordingly.” 16.1 In view of the above judgement of coordinate bench, we allow the claim

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; SP No.76/Coch/2022 & ITA No.952/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 9 (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

C-Income from house property. 12 D—Profits and gains of business or profession. E,—Capital gains. F—Income from other sources. 11. Some of the salient features of section 14 insofar as they have material bearing on the issue under appeal are as under:- (i) Section 14 merely classifies the income under various heads of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, passed on 30/03/2023. The addition was confirmed u/s 68 of the Act related to unexplained credit amount to Rs.9,56,04,655/-. The Ld.AO initiated

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii)of Income Tax Act and liable for TDS. 5.2 The Ld AO erred in not appreciating that the assessee company has made payment of Rs 1,07,08,950/- for clinical trials majorly

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

c)) The ld.CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the re-opening of assessment is done on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that all the disallowances made in the assessment-u/s 144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based