PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD ,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee

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 u/s. 271

HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. AO TYPE-W, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is justified or not. Penalty proceedings were initiated on account of disallowance

SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

disallowing certain deductions by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished incorrect particulars of income and provisions of section 271

HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

271(1)(c) of the Act, for the AY. 2014-15. 2 2. The first issue that arises for our consideration pertains to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Actin respect of the addition on account of deposits received from dealers in lieu of installing deep- freezers. 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this

BHIMA GOLD AND DIAMONDS,ADOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhbhima Gold & Diamonds Assistant Commissioner Of Central Junction Income Tax Vs. Adoor 691523 Kollam [Pan: Aanfb8547J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,83,160/- , it emerges during the course of hearing that the same pertains to section 40(b) partners remuneration disallowance

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC)). Saving is, further, provided for a bona fide explanation which is substantiated by disclosure of material facts or difference of estimate based duly disclosed material (s. 270A(6)). Further still, an immunity from penalty is provided u/s. 270AA

SRI. GEORGE MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI. GEORGE MATHEW, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of Rs.1,73,32,803/ - made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not effecting TDS from the expenses under the head -'Design & CAS expenses', Salary & allowances, Godown rent and professional charges. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the issue on the basis of details provided by the assessee

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c)\nYours faithfully,\n(Dr. SANJAY JOSEPH)\nJoint Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Range, Ernakulam\n10.\nThe above communication is nothing but a covering letter forwarding\napproval from JCIT to AO. It is not copy of actual approval accorded by\nJCIT. Based on this material, it is difficult for us to judge whether the\nJCIT had accorded approval

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance constituted concealment of particulars of income proceedings u/s. 271 rws 274 of the I. T. Act was initiated by by issue of notice dated 20.12.2016. In response the appellant submitted that the trust is eligible for exemption under section

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowance on account or repairs and maintenance charges. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of section 271(1)(a) of he Act we restore

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

disallowance on account or repairs and maintenance charges. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of section 271(1)(a) of he Act we restore

M/S THE PANNIYANKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE 1, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.80P. The assessed income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is Rs.1,48,86,392. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has come to light that there were violation of section 269SS and the assessing officer referred the case for initiation of penalty u/s.271D on 01.01.2018. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s.271D was initiated on 03.01.2018. Thereafter

PADMAKUMAR K P,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

disallowances have been made on adhoc basis and the addition is based on estimation. Further, the assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s.274 of the Act does not spell out under which limb the penalty proceedings have been initiated. Hence, the penalty needs to be quashed. The CIT(A), however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the imposition