SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32. With the above remarks the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 are confirmed partly.” 3. Consequently, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the appeal in ITA No. 6 to 10, 12 & 24/2015 dated 15/02/2016 for the assessment years

SMT.JAMMELA S,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

32 (Del) and 280 ITR 412 (Del). 9) The Appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that assessment order was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2009 assessing the total income at Rs.40,69,300/-. Among various additions made to total income, an amount of Rs.8

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

32,783/-. In the assessment order, the AO had clearly recorded a satisfaction that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were finalised by holding the appellant guilty of concealing income and levied penalty of Rs. 91,86,500/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the penalty

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act

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

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

32 taxmann.com 372 (Mumbai-Trib). In CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that so long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. ST.ANTONY'S TIMBER DEP, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.6. In view of the above discussion of the facts and provisions of law, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that this is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s I.T.A. No.294/Coch/2018 & CO No.63/coch/2018 271(l)(c) as the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income. The minimum penalty

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4812959/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.18041977/- Total Rs.22854956/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.22852436/- AY 2014-15 Table 1 Sl. Products Qty. Produced Production Sale Value Sale

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

penalty under section 271 C of the Income Tax Act". 7. Hence, as per the directions of the Hon. High Court, the assessee has to prove before this Hon. Tribunal that (i) The deductees have paid the tax in respect of the payments made to them by the assessee. (ii) Whether the payments in respect to Backhaul charges and Uplink