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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts

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 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

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

250/- on account of subscription to employee stock options (ESOP). However, the former employer has not issued any TDS certificate and hence, this income as well as TDS were inadvertently omitted to be included in the return filed u/s 139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 09/06/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order 2 Rajkumari Shopping Mall LLP of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 02/08/2021, passed under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “A. The orders of the lower authorities

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order dt. 26-03-2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the AY. 2014-15. 2 2. The first issue that arises for our consideration pertains

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeals against the Penalty Orders, dated 18/02/2022 and 08/06/2017, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2007-08, respectively. The Assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay on recovery of penalty

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeals against the Penalty Orders, dated 18/02/2022 and 08/06/2017, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2007-08, respectively. The Assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay on recovery of penalty

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Jomon John, Alappuzha Page 2 of 5 3. Brief facts of the case are that the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/12/2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, the notice issued u/s

FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17, date of order 24/06/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, date of order 22/08/2024. 2 Bader Sultana Kakad 2. Brief fact of the case

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)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 30/06/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, the “Ld.AO”) passed u/s. 144of the Act, date of order 12/12/2019. 2 Kanichukulangara Service Co-opeative Bank Limited 2. The brief facts

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”).

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 2 of 12 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 3 of 12 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 4 of 12 3. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2015-2016. 2. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,95,880. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 2 ITA No.767/Coch/2024. Sri.Riyas Nelliyote