THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

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)

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, and heard together. For technical reasons though; Form 35 being not available on record in Appeal No. 899/Coch/2022, 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)

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, and heard together. For technical reasons though; Form 35 being not available on record in Appeal No. 899/Coch/2022, hearing

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

3,00,00,000/- along with securities premium of Rs. 57,00,00,000/- to Shri. MP Ramachandran, one of the Directors of the company. This issue is not seen to have been examined by the Assessing Officer. The securities premium of Rs. 57,00,00,000/- may have to be brought to tax under section 56(2)(viib

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

131 (Ker)), was that the same would by itself, without anything more, trigger the jurisdiction to assess, abating all pending assessments, the second, which found favour with the Hon’ble Apex Court, is that it would only be on the strength of materials found during search, and not otherwise. As such, if no incriminating material indicating undisclosed income

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

131 (Ker)), was that the same would by itself, without anything more, trigger the jurisdiction to assess, abating all pending assessments, the second, which found favour with the Hon’ble Apex Court, is that it would only be on the strength of materials found during search, and not otherwise. As such, if no incriminating material indicating undisclosed income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest free funds are available with the Assessee. It was submitted that the Assessee had sufficient interest funds. It was submitted that even where the Assessee had mixed funds made up of own interest free funds

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

131,200 1,800,000 3,203,280 940,000 18,470,000 35,364.480 - Valsala Raj, Wife of Assessee 20,346,587 14,678,842 8,226,966 4,100,000 7,750,000 11,069,751 66,172,146 - Varun Raj, Son of Assessee