M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

section 147 of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 11/01/2001 wherein the Assessing Officer had calculated short term capital gains of Rs.6,43,779/- on sale of shops. The calculation of short term capital gains is as follows: The sold shop building Rs.10,10,000/- (sale consideration

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 271 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall be the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of income. In the case of the assessee, entire tax has been paid much before filing return of income by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, the person responsible

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

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 gain is not voluntary. 2.5 The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

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

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

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 of empty containers, were substantial questions of law and 16 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the High Court erred in dismissing the application of the Department on those questions and the High Court

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as per order dt.25.04.2019. 2. The appellant went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and as per order in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066407075(1) dt.04.07.2024, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The NOTICE issued by the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1

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.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR,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