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

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

Section 10A. Therefore, in fact, this order of the Delhi High Court supports the claim of the assessee. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the questions of law framed have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against revenue. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed

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

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

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

274 of the I.T.Act on 30.03.2016. The assessee in response to the notice issued, requested to drop the penalty proceedings for both the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 3 M/s.Soorya Drug House. assessment years as higher income was declared in the revised returns. Further it was submitted that the additions were only on estimates basis and the assessee has cooperated with

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

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

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

274 of the I.T.Act on 30.03.2016. The assessee in response to the notice issued, requested to drop the penalty proceedings for both the ITA No.236 & 237/Coch/2019. 3 M/s.Soorya Drug House. assessment years as higher income was declared in the revised returns. Further it was submitted that the additions were only on estimates basis and the assessee has cooperated with

THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S. THE ALLEPPEY CO. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as the cross objection by

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & Cross Objection No.19/Coch/2016

disallowed the deduction u/s 1OB on the ground that the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration was loss. 4. Section 10B of the Act specifically states that deduction can be allowed only from the total income of the assessee. 5. The total income returned by the assessee was 'Nil' and hence, the incorrect claim of deduction

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

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.ANTONY'S TIMBER DEP, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

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

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c). In response, the assessee neither attended on the appointed date nor filed any written submission. Thereafter, a fresh opportunity of hearing was granted by the Assessing Officer. In response, the authorised representative of the assessee made submissions vide his letter dated 26/09/2014. The submissions made reads as follows: "1 The assessment for the above mentioned

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

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

274 of the I.T.Act.” Due to assessee’s non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to verify the details regarding the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of the issue / allotment of shares (OPCCPS). The 13 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. Assessing Officer ought to have

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

M/S.ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

disallowance of set off of brought forward loss. 2. Though the assessee has mentioned the quantum of brought forward business loss not allowed for the assessment year 2008-09 as Rs.84,43,209/-, 2 I.T.A. Nos.373 & 374/Coch/2016 corresponding figure is not available in its grounds for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S. ACCEL TRANSMATIC LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

disallowance of set off of brought forward loss. 2. Though the assessee has mentioned the quantum of brought forward business loss not allowed for the assessment year 2008-09 as Rs.84,43,209/-, 2 I.T.A. Nos.373 & 374/Coch/2016 corresponding figure is not available in its grounds for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

274 2,87,980 2007-08 3,07,830 23,47,450 2008-09 1,35,460 44,66,120 2009-10 4,00,710 76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

274 2,87,980 2007-08 3,07,830 23,47,450 2008-09 1,35,460 44,66,120 2009-10 4,00,710 76,68,610 2010-11 7,69,907 43,55,030 2011-12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012-13 6,09,810 40,62,000 3.4 It was submitted that regular assessments