INCOME TAX OFFICER, IDUKKI vs. MARAYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 2022, IDUKKI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant First Floor, Mahima Owers, Temple Bypass Road, Thodupuzha, Idukki 685585 [Pan: Aacam0362Q] Vs. Marayoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Respondent Munnar-Udumalpet Road, Marayoor Keezhanthoor, Iddukki 685620 Appellant By: Shri Omanakuttan, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025

disallowance of claim for deduction made in Schedule-BP by holding that no plausible reasons were offered by the AO while making the above additions. 3 Marayoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CIT(A). 5. The learned

ACIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S. ATLAS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Disallowance of exchange loss Rs. 1,21,80,715 10. Exports below cost Rs. 3,73,10,429 11. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order deleted the addition made u/s. 40(a)(i)(a) as the services were rendered outside India, TDS is not applicable. The Atlas Jewellery India

ACIT, TRICHUR vs. M/S. ATLAS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Disallowance of exchange loss Rs. 1,21,80,715 10. Exports below cost Rs. 3,73,10,429 11. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order deleted the addition made u/s. 40(a)(i)(a) as the services were rendered outside India, TDS is not applicable. The Atlas Jewellery India

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM vs. CHRIST EDUCATIONAL TRUST, ERNAKULAM

In the result, both appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Ito Kuzhoor Ernakulam Kerala 683541 Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Co No.22/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Christ Educational Trust 3/356A, Christ Educational Trust Airapuram Po Vs. Kuzhoor Ito Kerala 683541 Ernakulam Pan No : Aabtc23768Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. Lokanathan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2025 & 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059567754(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection Against The Said

disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. 8. Per contra, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act and accordingly, eligible to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The books of accounts of the trust are audited by a Chartered Accountant and the audit report in the form

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

natural justice as far as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is concerned in that he has not considered the submission made by the appellant on 16th October, 2023 vide Acknowledgement Number The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 414976291171023 wherein the appellant had relied on the decision of the Cochin Bench in ITO Vs. Adichanalloor Farmer's Service

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

natural justice as far as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is concerned in that he has not considered the submission made by the appellant on 16th October, 2023 vide Acknowledgement Number The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. 414976291171023 wherein the appellant had relied on the decision of the Cochin Bench in ITO Vs. Adichanalloor Farmer's Service

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

disallowance u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- pertaining to claim of expenses relatable to purchases made. 4. Pursuant to the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO/NFAC passed penalty order

ELITE AGRO SPECIALITIES,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment: Year 2013-14 M/S. Elite Agro Specialties The Income Tax Officer 22A, Sidco Development Plot V. Thrissur Peringandoor, Thrissur – 680 581 Pan : Aaafe6205F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. Santha Kumar Respondent By : Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 Pronouncement : 25.09.2024

natural justice to the appellant. 2. The authorities below have disallowed the claim for depreciation by totally misconstruing the what

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

nature and requires no separate adjudication. 8. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee pertains to the disallowance on sales tax paid by the assessee. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was summoned to produce the proof of payment of sales tax which aggregated a payment of sales tax amounting to Rs.2,14,89,344/- which included Rs.10 lacs advance

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice, one final opportunity is provided for 24.01.2024. Issue notice by RPAD to the assessee as well as at the email ID afore referred.’ On 24.01.2024, whereat again none appeared nor adjournment application received, it was noted by the Bench that the only Power of Attorney on record is dated 12.12.20212 in favour of one, Shri P.K. Sasidharan

TOUFEEQ CHARITABLE TRUST,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Toufeeq Charitable Trust .......... Appellant C-14,139, Thaqua, Andathode, Malappuram [Pan: Aaatt6160E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur .......... 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Trust Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). It Is Founded With The Object Of Running Educational Institution For Charity. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed On 14.06.2016 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thrissur

disallowances without giving cogent reasons. Thus, the CIT(A) had passed the order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice

AISWARYA GRANITES,KOLLAM vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aiswarya Granites, Egpvii/70, The Assistant Arkannor, Commissioner Of Elavummoodu, Vs. Income Tax, Kollam 691 533. National E- Assessment Centre, Pan No : Aapfa5874K Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Preset Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.3.2022 Passed By Nfac Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner (Appeals) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Is Against-Facts & Law. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Payment Of Commercial Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) Should Have Appreciated That The Amount Paid Was A Statutory Levy Payable By All Crushers Installed In Stone Quarries Based On Their Installed Capacity. The Levy Was To Be Remitted On Quarterly Basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Concluding That The Amount Paid Is In The Nature Of A Compounding Fee For Any Offence Or Towards Aiswarya Granites, Kollam

nature and therefore cannot be disallowed. On perusal of the orders passed by authorities below, we note that Aiswarya Granites, Kollam Page 4 of 5 the Ld.CIT(A) disallowed the entire commercial tax paid by the assessee, which is actually related to the business of the assessee. In the interest of justice

JOHN GEORGE,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 John George, .......... Appellant Apt No.11A Infra Foreshore, Ifp Road, Fine Arts Avenue, Ernakulam, Kerala- 682 016. Vs. [Pan: Adlpg1701A]

disallowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the appeal has been filed late by 193 days. 3. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR for assessee read out para

PULIKKOTTIL JACOB TOJY,KERALA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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 Pulikkottil Jacob Tojy .......... Appellant Pulikottil Building Materiala Athani P.O., Thrissur 680771 [Pan: Abhpt9585F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Mini Candran, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 02.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Dealing In The Business Of Cement & Building Materials. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 08.02.2018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 16,68,360/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At A Total

disallowance made by the AO. On a mere perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A) it 3 Pulikkottil Jacob Tojy would be evident that the first appellate authority merely confirmed the action of the AO by passing a cryptic order without meeting the contentions of the appellant. The approach adopted by the CIT(A) is arbitrary, unreasonable

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

justice.\n2.\nYour appellant purchased a flat for Rs.2,20,86,740/- and also\nincurred additional expenses of Rs.31,29,112/- for installing\nsome basic facilities to make the house habitable. Even\nthough the total additional cost incurred on flat immediately\non its purchase was Rs.31,29,112/-, the appellant has claimed\nonly Rs.26,94,260/- which is as follows

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

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

disallowance of expenses where 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

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowances, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). While the matter stood thus subsequently on examination of the assessment records, the learned PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the AO had failed to examine the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sec.40

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant

KSEB EMPLOYEES CO OP SOCIETY,KALLARKUTTY vs. ITO,WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Kseb Employees Co-Op. Society Kallarkutty Kallarkutty Po Assessment Unit Vs. Idukki 685 562 Nfac Kerala Delhi Pan No : Aacak8820H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mathew Joseph, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 30.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064480180(1) For The Ay 2020- 21 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short “The Act”).

disallowed the amount of Rs. 23,13,641/- under the head any other allowable deduction. Further, the AO has also added increased unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,28,10,152/- (Rs. 4,80,63,221 – Rs. 3,52,53,069) as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act and brought to tax as per provision of section 115BBE