CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL CIT (A) BENGALURU - 12, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Clint Martel Wilfred Dcit (Interational Taxation) Clint Dale, Moolankuzhy Kochi Vs. Nazreth, Ernakulam 682002 [Pan: Abnpw6970H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS was received as on 28-09-2010 in cash from the office of tehsildar. The same cash after reducing legal expenses was deposited

SREEDHARAN NAIR BABU,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD -1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreedharan Nair Babu The Income Tax Officer 42/1975, Madhusree Non Corporate Ward – 1(1) P J Antony Ground Road Vs. C.R. Building Pachalam, Ernakulam 682012 I.S. Press Road [Pan:Ajtpb 4145M] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Arun Raj, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Dismissal Of His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 07.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Vide Its Order Dated 06.09.2022. 2. It Would Be Relevant To State The Background Facts Of The Case. The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession, Based At Ernakulam. For The Relevant Year He Returned His Income On 05.01.2016 At Rs.5,35,200, Which Was On Account Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account During The Year, Subject To Verification Under The Act. The Assessee Having Returned Income @ 35% Of The Disclosed Professional Receipt Of Rs.24,62,600, As Against The Cash Deposit Of Rs.67,03,100 In His Bank Account, The Ao Applied The Said Profit Rate On The Balance Rs.42,40,500, Making Thus An Addition For

cash deposit in the bank account thus, did not find favour with the ld. CIT(A), who held as under: - “6. The effective ground of appeal is against addition by ignoring the receipts of other 2 advocates. As per the appellant, the extra receipts of Rs.42,40,500/- considered by the AO for the purpose of estimating income

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

deposited original sales invoices, Bank statement etc. with the AO who has performed the assessment u/s 143(3), and the same has not been returned to him till now. The Appellant has no other efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal. H. It is admitted fact that when the tax has been deduced by the appellant

DRASMITH CHANDRASEKHARAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

cash deposit of Rs.1,79,80,272 made in the current account maintained with Andhra Bank as business turnover of the assessee and estimated the taxable income at 3.75% of the gross turnover and accordingly made an addition of Rs.14,38,422. The AO also made addition of Rs.3,71,860 as income from other sources and Rs.2

M/S.KADUTHURUTHY REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE JT IT(TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathankaduthuruthy Regional Service Joint Commissioner Of Co-Op Bank Ltd. Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Kaduthuruthuy P.O. Trivandrum Kottayam Pan – Aaajk0315Q Appellant Respondent

cash transactions or deposits of more than Rs. 1,00,000. 21. Therefore, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its conclusion that for such enquiry under section 133(6) the notice could be validly issued by the assessing authority. 22. In view of the above, the appeal requires to be dismissed and accordingly

CGR HALLMARKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSESING OFFICER,(ITO), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cgr Hallmarkers Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Building No. 62/1906, A, Sadanam Road Extn., M.G. Road S.O., Kochi 682016 [Pan: Aaccc4855G] Vs. Dcit, Corporte Circle 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956 Engaged In The Business Of Refining Precious Metals & Minting Of Coins & Bars. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Disclosing Income Of Rs. 46,28,269/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated

TDS v Disallowance of penalty Rs. 3,58,318/- vi. Disallowance of cash deposits Rs. 1,99,800/- 3. Being

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash on a single day exceeding Rs.20,000/- since the same is not in accordance with section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash on a single day exceeding Rs.20,000/- since the same is not in accordance with section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash on a single day exceeding Rs.20,000/- since the same is not in accordance with section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

TANSEER KAJA,KARINGARAPULLY vs. ITO CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash on a single day exceeding Rs.20,000/- since the same is not in accordance with section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the case of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

TDS was not deducted. The assessee denied the status of the society as a co-operative society and consequently, treating interest income of Rs.2,95,38,828/- as income from other sources, thereby denying deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Further, the AO made addition of Rs.13,47,19,707/- under Section

KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

cash deposit during the demonetisation period, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 19.03.2018. The assessment was completed vide order dated 31.12.2019 by the ACIT (Exemptions), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s. 144 of the Act at Nil income accepting the claim for exemption u/s. 10(23AAA) of the Act. However, the appellant

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

cash deposits during the demonetisation period; (ii) Mismatch in expenditure of personal nature reported in the audit report; (iii) Opening written down value of fixed assets as per ITR of the current year is greater than the closing written down value of fixed assets as per ITR of the preceding year. 3. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee filed

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

TDS-Income tax 24000.00 J.M.H.E.S. 477483.17 Dharmasthapanam H.E.A.M.S. 239932.00 Dharmasthapanam Investments: Federal Bank Share 5000.00 Dhanalakshmi Bank Share 127500.00 Loss in Kanmani A/c. Op. Balance 3077206.01 Add: For the year 755934.52 3833140.53 30130944.19 30130944.19 I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others The particulars of the cash at Bank show that the assessee was having a total amount of Rs.2

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

TDS-Income tax 24000.00 J.M.H.E.S. 477483.17 Dharmasthapanam H.E.A.M.S. 239932.00 Dharmasthapanam Investments: Federal Bank Share 5000.00 Dhanalakshmi Bank Share 127500.00 Loss in Kanmani A/c. Op. Balance 3077206.01 Add: For the year 755934.52 3833140.53 30130944.19 30130944.19 I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others The particulars of the cash at Bank show that the assessee was having a total amount of Rs.2

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

TDS-Income tax 24000.00 J.M.H.E.S. 477483.17 Dharmasthapanam H.E.A.M.S. 239932.00 Dharmasthapanam Investments: Federal Bank Share 5000.00 Dhanalakshmi Bank Share 127500.00 Loss in Kanmani A/c. Op. Balance 3077206.01 Add: For the year 755934.52 3833140.53 30130944.19 30130944.19 I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others The particulars of the cash at Bank show that the assessee was having a total amount of Rs.2

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

TDS-Income tax 24000.00 J.M.H.E.S. 477483.17 Dharmasthapanam H.E.A.M.S. 239932.00 Dharmasthapanam Investments: Federal Bank Share 5000.00 Dhanalakshmi Bank Share 127500.00 Loss in Kanmani A/c. Op. Balance 3077206.01 Add: For the year 755934.52 3833140.53 30130944.19 30130944.19 I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others The particulars of the cash at Bank show that the assessee was having a total amount of Rs.2

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

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

TDS-Income tax 24000.00 J.M.H.E.S. 477483.17 Dharmasthapanam H.E.A.M.S. 239932.00 Dharmasthapanam Investments: Federal Bank Share 5000.00 Dhanalakshmi Bank Share 127500.00 Loss in Kanmani A/c. Op. Balance 3077206.01 Add: For the year 755934.52 3833140.53 30130944.19 30130944.19 I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others The particulars of the cash at Bank show that the assessee was having a total amount of Rs.2