THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

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

Capital Gains has already been disclosed in the original Return of Income field u/s 139(1) by the Assessee on 30/07/2011 for which disclosure was correct - including the transaction itself and the gross amount received on such sale; except for a mistake in the income calculated on the sale of equity shares of the company and there was no concealment

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

b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view of the Explanation to Section 35D(3) which refers only to long-term borrowings, and (c) whether the Tribunal had erred in directing deduction under Section 80HH and 80-1 on the miscellaneous income of Rs.26,64,113 being income on sale

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

MS.KALLIYATH CYRIL RAJU,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

capital gain Rs. 65,000/- Interest Rs. 71,390/- Profit from Portfolio Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.3,21,356/- I.T.A. Nos.54 &55/C/2017 4.3 As the additional income offered by the assessee is not relating to the various items referred in Explanation 5A, there cannot be a levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain of the business. As such, where the accounts are prepared without disclosing the real cost of the goods in trade, he is duty bound to determine the taxable income by making computation in the manner he deems fit. Given the clear law in the matter, the issue becomes principally factual, wholly unproved. In our clear view, therefore, the Tribunal

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

Capital gain Rs. 8,74,837 ii) Profit from land sale Rs. 10,66,19,832 iii) Rent Rs. 1,08,000 iv) Credits in FB Olarikkara Rs. 3,74,61,047 v) Credits in YES Bank Rs. 1,00,00,000 vi) Cash Deficit Rs. 47,03,300 vii) Inflation of expenses Rs. 5,97,259 viii) Undisclosed discount

SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL MENON,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

capital gains by showing FMV as on 01.04.1981 on a exaggerated amount and had falsely claimed payment of brokerage to the tune of Rs.10 lakh. According to the Assessing Officer, this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to evade tax and such concealment was liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORP WARD 2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] Vs. Acit, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [PAN: AHOPM6606R] vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

b) marketing expenditure adjustment risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. The TPO erred in law in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8. Disallowance of tax holiday section 10B of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

b) marketing expenditure adjustment risk profile between the Assessee and the comparable companies. 7. Variation of 5% from the arithmetic mean. The TPO erred in law in not granting the variation as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. 8. Disallowance of tax holiday section 10B of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R. PRATAP,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SRI.R.PRAKASH,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha

SMT. T.C. USHA,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

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

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

271 275 1413478 20178 Cashew Co. assessee (Firm) & Others 5. Sun Food Son 19845.00 3799880 191 275 5457375 1657495 Corporation 6. Prakash Son 2885 551100 191 275 733468 182368 Exports 7. Nut Products Daughter 1428 337220 236 275 392947 55727 Company TOTAL 65778.36 13116854 18029389 4912535 3.8 For the assessment year 2010-11 in the case of T.C. Usha