SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income will not fall even under the head “Income from other sources”. Therefore, the corresponding deductions which

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P 25,88,593 of the Act 3 Unexplained cash credit in the books of 4,44,09,710 account u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE on account of unsecured loan taken other deposits 4 Unexplained money

JOMY JACOB,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO,WARD -3, TIRUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained money u/s. 69 of the act and also disallowed the agricultural income. As against the said order, the assessee

THE MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. PVT. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE & TPS, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd .......... Appellant Manorama Building, K K Road, Kottayam – 686001, Kerala. Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Circle & Tps, Kottayam.

unexplained money by the appellant. As 3 The Malayala Manorama Co Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT regards to the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act, it is contended

JOY THOMAS,KURAVILANGADU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

unexplained money of the appellant, rejecting the explanation that the cash deposits of Rs. 16,00,219/- was made out of interest collected from three parties, viz., Dr. Cyriac Mathew, Dr. Abraham P.E. and Shri Jophy Joseph, J.J. The AO made addition of Rs. 9,12,000/- being the interest expenditure paid in cash invoking the provisions of section

KINGSTAR ENTERPRISES,PERUBAVOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowing 5% of the total cost of purchase by holding that the assessee purchased rubber from unregistered dealer, i.e., agriculturists. The A.O. also made an addition of Rs.11,50,000 for alleged failure of the assessee to explain cash deposits made in the bank account. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM vs. SUNITHA MENON, KOTTAYAM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68 of the Act for making this addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that

POOCHIBA VALAPPIL NELLIYAT DHANESH,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 AND TPS, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Poochiba Valappil Nelliyat Dhanesh .......... Appellant Aiswarya Nivas, Near Ashokmandiram Azhikkal P.O., Kannur 670009 [Pan: Apepd6192H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd 1 & Tps, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

unexplained money of the appellant for failure of the appellant to offer explanation as to the source of said credit. The AO also brought to tax the interest income of Rs. 3,910/- and also disallowed

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

unexplained money of the appellant vide order\ndated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n5.\nBeing aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)\ncontending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the\nAct and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All\ncash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

BHASURAM SHOPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEYYATTINKARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.53,51,404 being the expenditure incurred in cash by the Managing Director of the assessee company, Sri.Sureshbabu B for the alleged failure of the appellant-company to establish that these expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The AO also made an addition of Rs.11,93,464 as unexplained money

SAJU ETTUNGAL PAPPU ,CHOWARA,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained money addition of Rs.23,09,500/- 2 Saju Ettungal Pappu. representing cash deposits made during demonetisation period. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee’s stand adopted throughout that these cash deposits represent his business sale only. He has further filed record of cash balance in his hand during the relevant previous year and before the demonetisation period. The Revenue

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

M/S.ARMAJARO TRADING INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act and large increase in share application money pending for more than one year. The assessment was completed vide order dated 03.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, wherein the total income assessed was at Rs.11,94,830. 4 ITA No.10/Coch/2021. M/s.Armajaro Trading India (P) Ltd. 4. The PCIT issued show cause notice

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA (P) LIMITED,PARIYARAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

money in any form as dividend, share, sakath etc., during the relevant year. Excel sheet seized form other premises, stated to be some projection made by them to suit their convenience , do not tantamount to ' incriminating materials' as stated under the act and hence should not have been relied for the purpose of assessment . The Commissioner of Income