KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

price fixed by the State Government for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, was at Rs.215.21 lakhs, i.e., at Rs.76.03 lacs higher. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, reading as under, was thus attracted, applicability of which had not been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment: Income from other sources

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee

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

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

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

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

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

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

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

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

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

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact