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

150 ITR 703 (Mad), the burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan; and the genuineness of the transactions, is so inspite the entries to that effect in his account books. It is only after he establishes these things, at least prima facie, that the onus shifts

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

68,911/- The Assessee has now preferred the present appeal challenging Final Assessment Order. The Assessee has raised 17 Grounds of Appeal which are taken up in seriatim hereinafter. Ground No.1 3. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: “1. That the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram (Assessing Officer

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P. SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, THE CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

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

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

150/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the addition to capital of Rs. 97,62,000/- disbelieving the sundry creditors appearing in the Balance Sheet and the said assessment was not agitated before the appellate forum. Thus, the assessment attained finality. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show cause

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the I.T.Act does not have application to the investment to the tune of Rs.4,87,58,962. The investment amounting to Rs.6

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives

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.

Section 10(26) of the Act. Certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures were noted in the loan confirmation letters obtained from loan creditors. The funds were also allegedly utilized for making payment to contractors, payment for civil work etc. for the group concerns. Some of the funds were transferred to bank accounts of family members, friends and relatives