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.

Exemption Ward, Pallottigiri, Trivandrum. Kerala – 695 016. Vs. PAN: AAATP2861J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri P.V. Chacko, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR : 01-01-2025 Date of Hearing : 27-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/04/2024

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

exempted u/s 10 (38) of the Income Tax, as the transaction is chargeable to 'securities transaction tax' and STT was paid on this transaction. 4. The ld AR relied on various judicial pronouncements to canvas the proposition that inadvertent omission of an item does not attract penalty u/s 271

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Exemption),Cochin-18 for initiation of proceedings u/s.271D of the Act for violating provisions of sec.269SS of the Act. The JCIT(E) issued notice and the assessee also submitted their objections, which was not accepted by the JCIT(E) and penalty u/s.271D of the Act was imposed. As against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Exemption),Cochin-18 for initiation of proceedings u/s.271D of the Act for violating provisions of sec.269SS of the Act. The JCIT(E) issued notice and the assessee also submitted their objections, which was not accepted by the JCIT(E) and penalty u/s.271D of the Act was imposed. As against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before

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

u/s. 271 rws 274 of the I. T. Act was initiated by by issue of notice dated 20.12.2016. In response the appellant submitted that the trust is eligible for exemption under section 11(1)(d) of the IT act and that the trust had received corpus donations and the details of the donors and the original certificates were produced

RAJAGIRI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJAGIRI,KALAMASSERY vs. ITO EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust .......... Appellant Rajagiri, Kalamassery 683104 [Pan: Aaatr5410K] Vs. Ito (Exemption Circle), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.J. Romid, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

Exemption Circle), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.J. Romid, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 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 14.05.2025 for Assessment Year

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

u/s. 271D, no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of The Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY CO-OPERATIVE BANKLTD.,WAYANAD vs. JCIT RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

u/s. 271D, no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of The Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

exemption u/s 11 when it was not eligible for the same, the AO has rightly levied the penalty of Rs 18,74,916/- u/s 271

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

exemption u/s 11 when it was not eligible for the same, the AO has rightly levied the penalty of Rs 18,74,916/- u/s 271

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 5 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO November 6, 2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on July 29, 2008, is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation

M/S.KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 5 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO November 6, 2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on July 29, 2008, is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM, WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

u/s. 271D & 271E for the reasons that there were no banks operating in and around Wayanad district. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits from members for repaying the deposits in cash. After Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. considering the written submission we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

u/s. 271D & 271E for the reasons that there were no banks operating in and around Wayanad district. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits from members for repaying the deposits in cash. After Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. considering the written submission we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned