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/-.

section 271(1)(c) is essential for the Revenue to initiate the penalty proceedings. 8. The penalty proceedings must be confined only to those grounds specifically stated in the notice so that the assessee could meet those grounds. It is not open to the authority, to impose a penalty on the grounds other than what the assessee was called upon

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

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

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

25-10-2023, as detailed in the statement of facts, the CIT (Appeals) NFAC has confirmed the penalty u/s 271E by his order dated 28-11- 2023 and dismissed our appeal. (Copy of the order of CIT (Appeals) NFAC is attached herewith). 2. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) NFAC, the appellant assessee is approaching

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

25-10-2023, as detailed in the statement of facts, the CIT (Appeals) NFAC has confirmed the penalty u/s 271E by his order dated 28-11- 2023 and dismissed our appeal. (Copy of the order of CIT (Appeals) NFAC is attached herewith). 2. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) NFAC, the appellant assessee is approaching

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 under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 25.06.2008 for Assessment Year 2000-01 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s order dated 27.04.2021. 2. It would be relevant to recount the facts of the case. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and export

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

25,461/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 26/12/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') after disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being

HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

25-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M : The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 02-05-2024, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT

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

25,461/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 26/12/2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') after disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that the assessee is dealing with the non-members. 5. Being

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

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

25,88,71,177/- as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 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

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

25,88,71,177/- as unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 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