M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG 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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

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)

10. In result, ITA No. 527/Coch/2025 preferred by the Assessee is allowed. ITA No. 528/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2012-2013] ITA No. 529/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2013-2014] ITA No. 530/Coch/2025 [A.Ys. 2014-2015] 11. As regards ITA Nos. 528, 529 & 530/Coch/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the same have been preferred by the Assessee

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

10,75,430/-. The AO made the disallowance u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- pertaining to claim of expenses relatable to purchases made. 4. Pursuant to the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Subsequently

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

section 271 (1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall be the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of income. In the case of the assessee, entire tax has been paid much before filing return of income by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, the person responsible

YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

section 274 of granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, it explained, could not be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge. As explained earlier in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works[1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj), the use of the words ‘and/or’, i.e., between the two charges, being ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate

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

10 cases where cash repayments aremade, one person is a trustee of the appellant Trust ( Mr K P Shaji) , 4 cases are former employees locally available, from whom notarized affidavits are taken, 2 persons are in abroad from them emails are received and KYC details available, 2 persons passed away and one person is not available for contact). This

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

10 cases where cash repayments aremade, one person is a trustee of the appellant Trust ( Mr K P Shaji) , 4 cases are former employees locally available, from whom notarized affidavits are taken, 2 persons are in abroad from them emails are received and KYC details available, 2 persons passed away and one person is not available for contact). This

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were finalised by holding the appellant guilty of concealing income and levied penalty of Rs. 91,86,500/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding that the show cause notice issued by the AO is defective

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice u/s. 274 of even date: 2 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle i. Claim for deduction u/s 80IA(Rs.68,82,867/-) was rejected. ii. Bank interest of Rs. 3,13,508/- was assessed as ‘Income from Other Sources’. iii. The claim for deduction u/s 80HHC was restricted with reference to section

CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law provided that he either substantiates the explanation offered by him or the explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide. E. Where the appellant has withdrawn the claim during the course of the assessment proceedings, the penalty under section 270A

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 271(1) of the Act and also on the judicial pronouncement the Hon'ble High Courts of Allahabad and Madras (supra). From a mere reading of Explanation 3, it is crystal clear that where the assessee fails to furnish the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, it shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 271(1) of the Act and also on the judicial pronouncement the Hon'ble High Courts of Allahabad and Madras (supra). From a mere reading of Explanation 3, it is crystal clear that where the assessee fails to furnish the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, it shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 271(1) of the Act and also on the judicial pronouncement the Hon'ble High Courts of Allahabad and Madras (supra). From a mere reading of Explanation 3, it is crystal clear that where the assessee fails to furnish the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, it shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

section 271(1) of the Act and also on the judicial pronouncement the Hon'ble High Courts of Allahabad and Madras (supra). From a mere reading of Explanation 3, it is crystal clear that where the assessee fails to furnish the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, it shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of income