SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 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 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

144((13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 56,04,300/0. While doing so, the AO made addition of an amount of Rs. 13,88,632/- being the belated remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESE remitted beyond the due date specified in the respective Acts, but before the due date

JOMON JOHN,BAZAR vs. I. T. O, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act, the penalty u/s. 271 (1)(d) should not be levied. 8. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the AO has passed the assessment order u/s

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

144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return of income as he was under treatment for psychological issues. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

144 of the Act. The assessee filed the letter for immunity for proceeding u/s 270A of the Act. The said letter was duly annexed in APB page No. 20. The Ld.AR further submitted that only the certain expenses were disallowed by the Ld. AO in assessment proceeding. The Ld. AR argued for deletion of penalty U/s 270A

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024\nissued u/s. 271(1)(c), the appellant came to know about the Order u/s\n250. Immediately, on 05.06.2025, meeting of the Board of Directors\nof the Society was convened and decided to file the appeal before\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench against the Order of the CIT(A).\nWithin 60 days from

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was 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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was 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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was 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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was 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

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained. The NFAC held that since

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of account maintained. The NFAC held that since

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO had ignored the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act disclosing income of Rs. 14,54,395/- filed on 24.03.2022 and also challenged the action of the AO in taxing the entire contract

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the AO had ignored the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act disclosing income of Rs. 14,54,395/- filed on 24.03.2022 and also challenged the action of the AO in taxing the entire contract