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

271(1)(c) appears to be an excessive step. The enhancement made in the instant case is the result of a factual mistake in the cost adopted in respect of the acquisition of bonus shares even as the gross receipts and the transaction itself were mentioned in the original Return of Income filed u/s 139(1). The Respondent has thereafter

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.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 of the I.T.Act.” Due to assessee’s non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not have occasion to verify the details regarding the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of the issue / allotment of shares (OPCCPS). The 13 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies

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

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

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

assessment year 2010-11.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 68 pages enclosing therein the financial statement for the year ending 31.03.2020, the various orders of Income Tax Authorities and the case laws relied on. The learned

K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

Penalty u/s 153C Income Proceeding u/s 2007-08 3,10,370 14,50,370 271(1)(c) 2008-09 6,43,400 1,45,03,400 271(1)(c) 2009-10 6,00,730 12,87,197 271(1)(c) 2010-11 8,11,240 10,71,240 271

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

Penalty u/s 153C Income Proceeding u/s 2007-08 3,10,370 14,50,370 271(1)(c) 2008-09 6,43,400 1,45,03,400 271(1)(c) 2009-10 6,00,730 12,87,197 271(1)(c) 2010-11 8,11,240 10,71,240 271

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

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

Penalty u/s 153C Income Proceeding u/s 2007-08 3,10,370 14,50,370 271(1)(c) 2008-09 6,43,400 1,45,03,400 271(1)(c) 2009-10 6,00,730 12,87,197 271(1)(c) 2010-11 8,11,240 10,71,240 271

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

reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act 2 Rajagiri Educational & Charitable Trust was issued on 29.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income and claimed expenditure of Rs. 28,55,89,443/-. Against the said return of income

BADER SULTAN KAKAD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bader Sultana Kakad .......... Appellant 11/460 Metro Bazar, Market Road Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Agtpb9696A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Palakkad ......... Respondent Assesseeby: Shri Sivadas Chettor, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of three notices aggregate amount of penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. During the penalty proceeding the assessee made details compliance on dated 04/05/2024in response to notice of the Ld. AO dated 02/05/2024. But the penalty is imposed by the Ld. AO by rejecting the submission of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee