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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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)

15, respectively, was dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2

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

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

section 271E imposing penalty of Rs 34 lakhs on the appellant. b) Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case.” 12. In this appeal the assessee had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in which the ld CIT had confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271

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

section 271E imposing penalty of Rs 34 lakhs on the appellant. b) Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case.” 12. In this appeal the assessee had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in which the ld CIT had confirmed the penalty levied 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

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)

penalty proceedings u/s. 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

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

penalty for under-reporting income u/s. 270A(2). That is, deliberateness, which is implied inasmuch as it is the assessee, in the intimate know of his affairs, who nevertheless returns a lower income, and brought forth specifically per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst

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

15,670/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National 2 Sai Export Enerprises Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144((13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 56,04,300/0. While doing

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

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

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

penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 16. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 17. In the quantum appeal this

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

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

penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 16. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 17. In the quantum appeal this

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

15 15/Coch/2023 2015-16 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 271(1)(c) 23/1046317203(1) 16 16/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 271AAC1 23/1046338750(1) 17 17/Coch/2023 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 270 23/1046339605(1) 18 2017-18 18/Coch/2023 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 143(3) 23/1046338190(1) Heard both parties at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that all these assesse’s appeals arise from