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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, section 36 (I)(vii) and 36 (I)(vii)) were only based on a difference of opinion with the predecessor AO, on the same sett of facts. 2. al) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s I4A of the Act r.w.rule 8D off the IT Rules, made by the AO amounting

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

3) of the Act and the assessment was made in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. 7.9.4 In view of the above, the Assessing Officer made the assessment of the income of the assesseefor this assessment year as follows: Estimation

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.

144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge the authenticity of the conclusive documentary evidences and submissions filed by the Appellant in support thereof. 6a. That

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.

144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge the authenticity of the conclusive documentary evidences and submissions filed by the Appellant in support thereof. 6a. That

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.

144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge the authenticity of the conclusive documentary evidences and submissions filed by the Appellant in support thereof. 6a. That

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.

144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge the authenticity of the conclusive documentary evidences and submissions filed by the Appellant in support thereof. 6a. That

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.

144/- made by the Ld. A.O without specifying the relevant sections of the Act invoked by him merely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and borrowed satisfaction, without bringing on record any iota of legally sustainable evidence to dislodge the authenticity of the conclusive documentary evidences and submissions filed by the Appellant in support thereof. 6a. That