SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 (1) (c) will be initiated separately. From this it was very clear that no opinion was formed and no satisfaction was recorded by the A.O before or at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings. Ref 278 ITR 32 (Del) and 280 ITR 412 (Del). 9) The Appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds at the time

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of an addition based on estimate and disallowance. In the appellant's case

PALLOOTTIGIRI SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances. After the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

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 of corpus donation cannot be said as concealment of particulars (ii) penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The disallowance of salary expenses for both the assessment years were made on an estimate

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The disallowance of salary expenses for both the assessment years were made on an estimate

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M.A.MOHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI. M.A. MUHEYIDDIN, PARAVUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) however considering this fact has deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. and hence the penalty order passed by the A.O. should be upheld. 5. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant material

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) is justified. It is also noticed that the assessee not only concealed the correct income, but also attempted to give false explanation. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the lower authorities were justified in levy of penalty I.T.A. No.131 & 132/Coch/2016 us. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first 4 Sri.K Rajagopal Menon. appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the imposition of penalty. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follow:- “5. In strict interpretation of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), which

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in the return of income for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in respect of the interest income received from Banks and Treasury: Appeal No. Interest from Bank & Treasury Penalty u/s 271