KRISHNA STEEL ROLLING MILLS,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the debtors as claimed by the assessee in its submission during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee furnished various documents which were considered by the AO but were found to be inadequate to substantiate the claim of the assessee. The cash book of the assessee was also rejected

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

133(6) to Shri Roy Vayalat seeking confirmation, but no response was received. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain why the sum of Rs. 2,33,60,354 should not be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68. 3. Assessing Officer ought to have seen that even if the deposits are treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68, deduction u/s. 80P is available to the appellant as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016 dated 02/11/2016

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

133(6) is factually incorrect, as the bank had sanctioned the loan to the appellant and has issued a confirmation letter to this effect. F. The appellant craves to add, modify, substitute, alter or delete any of the grounds in this appeal.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 was framed

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490,\nwhere in a batch of appeals challenging assessments completed under\nsection 147 read with 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, the High\nCourt, after considering section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, various\nprovisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the bye-\nlaws of the Societies

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

133(6) of the Act, or even summoning the concerned persons. That apart, the amount deemed as income is stated to include the opening balance/s, i.e., as outstanding as at the close of the immediately preceding year, as well, so that there is no credit in its respect in the assessee’s accounts for the current year, which only could

SRI. MATHAI EAPEN VETTATH,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, NON-CORPORATE, WD-1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

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

133(6) from Catholic Syrian Bank and State Bank of India wherein the assessee was maintaining banks accounts. The banks supplied the statements and the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had deposited Rs.49,22,000/- on 06/03/2014 and 07/03/2014 as under: Sl. No. Date Amount Name of Nature of deposit Bank

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

6. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has observed that the revenue has not disputed the fact that there is no discrepancy with regard to quantitative details of the stock items and that the only difference is with regard to adopting the value of closing stock. The Tribunal placed