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

2,551,812 51,459,144 2003-04 5,959,312 - 5,959,312 93,539,478 2004-05 961,388 - 961,388 139,593,897 2005-06 325,049 - 325,049 209,274,643 2006-07 - 700,000 700,000 467,452,244 2007-08 - - - 717,455,603 Total 9,797,561 700,000 10,497,561 Thus

CHANDIROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. JCIT, RANGE 1, ALAPPUZHA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2. Brief facts of the case are as under the assessee is a cooperative society, filed its return of income on 19.12.2017, declaring total income at ‘Nil’. The assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 17.12.2019, disallowing deduction under Section 80P and determining the total income at Rs. 32,96,560. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted

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

2% instead of 3%. c) The section under which MAT credit has been allowed has been wrongly mentioned as 115AA instead of 115JAA. d) After 'balance payable', the section under which interest has been levied has been wrongly mentioned as 234D instead of 234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned

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

274. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made— (a) by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand rupees; (b) by the Assistant Commissioner

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

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

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred into interpretation of section 11(1)(d) of Income Tax i.e donation should be voluntary and specific directions should be given that they shall form part of corpus of trust. In the instant case the receipts were not specific, hence disallowance made and penalty levied. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

disallowance of salary, estimated personal use of car and the defect in accounting sales. The appellant has neither concealed particulars of such income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in the returns filed. Hence it is not a fit case to impose penalty and the order of dropping the penalty proceedings is not erroneous. Ground - 2 Direction to pass

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

disallowance of salary, estimated personal use of car and the defect in accounting sales. The appellant has neither concealed particulars of such income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in the returns filed. Hence it is not a fit case to impose penalty and the order of dropping the penalty proceedings is not erroneous. Ground - 2 Direction to pass

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, 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, 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

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.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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show cause notice the appellant file an explanation. However, the AO had proceeded with the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show cause notice the appellant file an explanation. However, the AO had proceeded with the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

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

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.

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

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