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 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

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

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

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 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 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Business’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 31.12.2020 Declaring Nil. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The 2 Jacob Thomas Act) At A Total Income Of Rs. 59,34,921/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Claimed Of Rs. 89,73,412/- U/S. 57 Of The Act. Accordingly, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued U/S. 274 R.W.S 270A Of The Act. The Appellant Had Failed O Respond To The Above Show Cause Notice. In The Circumstances The Ao Had Proceeded With Levy Penalty Of Rs. 57,24,630/- U/S. 270A By Holding That The Appellant Is Guilty Of Misreporting Income.

274 r.w.s 270A of the Act. The appellant had failed o respond to the above show cause notice. In the circumstances the AO had proceeded with levy penalty of Rs. 57,24,630/- u/s. 270A by holding that the appellant is guilty of misreporting income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned

M/S.BODYGEAR INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

section 10B of the Act. However, the CIT(A) has 3 ITA No.274/Coch/2023. Bodygear International Pvt.Ltd. confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.10B of the Act by holding that filing revised return does not amount to substitution of the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, and therefore, does not constitute a sufficient

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant filed explanation stating that mere disallowance of claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, no penalty can be levied. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

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

disallowed the loss on account of foreign currency transaction of Rs. 21,84,084/-. The said assessment order attained finality as the appellant had chosen not to contest further. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response

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

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

disallowing the MAT credit granted vide order dated 24/12/2010, the rectification order was passed on 11/02/2019 in the present case, which is beyond the statutory limitation period of 4 years. 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) vehemently relied upon the impugned order. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material