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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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)

273B of the Act to establish that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same in view of the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view the legal position regarding claim of deduction

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

273B in the Act. If there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the tax payer could not get a loan ordeposit by account- payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power." "At this juncture it is appropriate to quote

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

273B in the Act. If there was a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the tax payer could not get a loan ordeposit by account- payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power." "At this juncture it is appropriate to quote

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.

271(1)(c) is one such consequence, saved of course u/s. 273B on proving a reasonable cause, which is a reiteration of the principle that though a strict civil liability, penalty is yet not automatic and gets excluded where the assessee-defaulter was constrained to act in the manner he does, i.e., in the facts and circumstances of his case

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March 2018 or within 6 months from the month of December 2017, ie on or before 30th June 2018, whichever period expires later. Since the order of the Joint ITA Nos.319 & 320/Coch/2023 & SP Nos.105 & 106/Coch/2023 The SulthanBathery Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Wayanad Page

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

THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MANNARKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

u/s. 44AB stands delinked from the obligation to file return –a default where- under is subject to penalty under a separate provision, by Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 01.07.1995. Even if, therefore, the assessee is not required to – as where he has no income for the relevant year, or otherwise does not his file return of income, he is yet obliged

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue is not justifiable, and accordingly the same is deleted. 8. The last issue that arises for our consideration pertains to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act in respect of the addition 5 made on account of interest received by the assessee on refund u/s. 244A

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

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

271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals. Learned DR seeks to submit that AY 2017-18 also involves section 270A penalty of under reporting of incomes as a consequence to misreporting. We are of the considered view that once the lower authorities have estimated the assessee’s book

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

271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals. Learned DR seeks to submit that AY 2017-18 also involves section 270A penalty of under reporting of incomes as a consequence to misreporting. We are of the considered view that once the lower authorities have estimated the assessee’s book