INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

68 of the Act and the CIT(A) not empowered to confirm the addition under a different section. 4 Haseena Mehboob 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR, placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called for. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee company stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

76,05,006/-. Rajendran Pillai, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition in respect of loan received from other parties to the extent of Rs. 2,41,065/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the Revenue, the Revenue

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,76,559/-. His case therefore, is that the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s impugned deduction claim. 3 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017 4. Learned counsel on the other hand, has filed a copy of the assessee’s statement(s) dated 16.02.2012 filed before the learned CIT in sec.263 proceedings reading as under : 4 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68,76,559/-. His case therefore, is that the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s impugned deduction claim. 3 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017 4. Learned counsel on the other hand, has filed a copy of the assessee’s statement(s) dated 16.02.2012 filed before the learned CIT in sec.263 proceedings reading as under : 4 ITA.Nos. 251 & 252/Coch./2017

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments for these years have acquired finality and were not pending as on the date of search. It was submitted that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.270

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments for these years have acquired finality and were not pending as on the date of search. It was submitted that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.270

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments for these years have acquired finality and were not pending as on the date of search. It was submitted that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.270

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments for these years have acquired finality and were not pending as on the date of search. It was submitted that the 3 I.T.A. Nos.270

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar