THACHANATTUKARA FARMERS PRODUCERS COMPANY,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 1, PALAKKAD

In the result, all the appealsare allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

95/ Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Kollad Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward – 2, Kottayam vs. Kollad, Kottayam 686004 [PAN:AAAAK2083Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 995/ /Coch/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Thachnattukara Farmers The Income Tax Officer Producer Company Ltd. Ward – 1, Palakkad 9/38, KTA Complex, Palode vs. Mannarkkad, Palakkad 678583 [PAN:AAFCT3538G] (Appellant) (Respondent

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income details of which has not been declared by the assessee in the return. In view of the above, It is clear that the assessee

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income details of which has not been declared by the assessee in the return. In view of the above, It is clear that the assessee

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income details of which has not been declared by the assessee in the return. In view of the above, It is clear that the assessee

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

95,313 under Section 68 of the Act and the computation of long-term capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266 after disallowing

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 37(1), as well as, without prejudice, u/s. 40(b)(i) r/w Explanation 4 thereto. As it appears to us, being in fact apparent, as also admitted, the claim for remuneration to partners is calibrated to the profits of the firm and, thus, determined only after the close of the year, i.e., is an afterthought, with a view

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

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

Section 40A(ia) for 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

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

95,496) and bank charges (Rs.81,655), in view of section 37(1) read with Explanation 1 thereto, which reads as under: “37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the claim of provisions on standard assets and confined its provisions only to an extent of bad and doubtful debts on the Page 6 of 9 non-performing assets. Hence there is no error in the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 6. Section 263 is to be invoked when the twin conditions of order being erroneous

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

section 54F makes it clear that the assessee can purchase or construct one residential house in India and therefore, the second residential house is not eligible for the benefit provided u/s.54F of the Act. The AO as well as the CIT(A) considered the submissions and found that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit provided u/s.54F

LOKA RAKSHAKA SOCIETY,KOLLAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 95,16,957, disallowing

MANAPURAM FINANCE LTD,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Manappuram Finance Ltd., Acit, Circle-1(1) Iv/470A(Old), Thrissur W638A(New), Vs. Manappuram House, Valapad P.O. Thrissur-680567 Pan : Aabcm6882E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 511,95,39,820, after disallowing

PREETHI JOHN MUTHOOT,THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs. DCIT/ CENTRAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhpreethi John Muthoot Dcit, Central Circle - 1 Moothoot Centre, Punnen Road Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695001 Kawdiar [Pan: Acrpj5145J] Trivandrum 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A r.w. rule 8D disallowance of Rs.69,35,551/-; without even giving a categorical finding about the assessee having not derived any exempt income as per her books of account pertaining to the relevant previous year. This being the clinching admitted fact, case law in CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj.); Cheminvest