SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains accrued to the assessee on the sale of property which was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice-u/s 153C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a partner in 22 firms and is also a Director of two private limited companies. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. SRI.AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, COCHIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

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

penalty imposed, which are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee's case. 2.2 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had not offered the correct long term capital gains on transfer of equity shares in the original return of income filed by him for A.Y.2011-12 on 30/07/2011. 2.3 The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). Every omission/concealment does not attract the rigour of s. 271(1)(c). It must be deliberate and intentional Page 4 of 7 being in the knowledge of the assessee so as to evade payment of tax. In the case of the assessee, there was a change in the employment. Previous employer has not issued Form

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain of the business. As such, where the accounts are prepared without disclosing the real cost of the goods in trade, he is duty bound to determine the taxable income by making computation in the manner he deems fit. Given the clear law in the matter, the issue becomes principally factual, wholly unproved. In our clear view, therefore, the Tribunal

SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL MENON,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

capital gains by showing FMV as on 01.04.1981 on a exaggerated amount and had falsely claimed payment of brokerage to the tune of Rs.10 lakh. According to the Assessing Officer, this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to evade tax and such concealment was liable for penalty u/s 271

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. filed a letter dated 3.7.2024. The assessee was not interested to press the appeal in ITA No.865/Coch/2022. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. With regard to ITA No.864/Coch/2022, the facts of the case

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. filed a letter dated 3.7.2024. The assessee was not interested to press the appeal in ITA No.865/Coch/2022. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. With regard to ITA No.864/Coch/2022, the facts of the case

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

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act. Relief 6 & 185/Coch/2015 12. The Assessee prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant all such relief arising from the proceeding grounds as also all relief consequential thereof. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act. Relief 6 & 185/Coch/2015 12. The Assessee prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant all such relief arising from the proceeding grounds as also all relief consequential thereof. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016. 2. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,95,880. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 2 ITA No.767/Coch/2024. Sri.Riyas Nelliyote