SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [PAN: AAOPI0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Padmanathan K.V., Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 09.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an appeal by the assessee

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') by 8 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the Assessing Officer (AO') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the additions/disallowances made by the AO are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The additions/disallowances made are unsustainable, unjust, highly excessive

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 143 (2) dated 20-9-2016 was issued. The assessee along with her husband had sold total extend of 25.59 acres of land with building at Thrissur for total consideration of Rs 7,69,26,880/-through a common sale deed registered on 25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 143 (2) dated 20-9-2016 was issued. The assessee along with her husband had sold total extend of 25.59 acres of land with building at Thrissur for total consideration of Rs 7,69,26,880/-through a common sale deed registered on 25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 31/03/2016, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. It would be relevant to recount the background facts of the case. A search u/s. 132 of the Act in the group cases of Dr. P.H. Abdul Majeed and M/s. Sevana Group of medical stores

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143 Taxmann.com 135(Cal.)  Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. 123 Taxmann.com 38 (Bom)  Marg Ltd. 120 Taxmann.com 84 (Mad)  Esillor India (P) Ltd. 137 Taxmann.com 60 (Karn.)  CIT Vs. Hero Management Services Ltd. 360 ITR 68 (Del)  Infrastructure Logistics P Ltd. 141 Taxmann.com 24 (Panaji)(ITAT) (ii) It was further submitted that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed when sufficient interest