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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions seeking stay of penalty in respect of the above cases. 10. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residence of Smt Asha Sunil

M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

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

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

271(1)(c) (Rs.) 2002-03 6,23,108/- 2003-04 12,01,918/ 2004-05 6,95,852/ 2005-06 4,68,202/- 2006-07 2,44,553/- 2007-08 2,68,385/- 2008-09 1,77,154/-. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the main issue is penalty imposed by the AO on account of addition

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

42,80,581/- Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4919560/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.14280581/- Total Rs.192900141/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.19197641

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

42,80,581/- Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were initiated separately. I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 4919560/- Addition (as per para 5.3] Rs.14280581/- Total Rs.192900141/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total Income Assessed Rs.19197641

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

42,15,670/-. 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

SRI. MANZAR ALIKUNJU,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

penalty I.T.A. No.131 & 132/Coch/2016 us. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 132/Coch/2016 is dismissed. 8. In the appeal in ITA No. 131/Coch/2016 for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have

ATTU PURATTU ISMAIL,THALASSERY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

42,184/-. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 13,035/- vide order dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act. Relief 6 & 185/Coch/2015 12. The Assessee prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant all such relief arising from the proceeding grounds as also all relief consequential thereof. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act. Relief 6 & 185/Coch/2015 12. The Assessee prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant all such relief arising from the proceeding grounds as also all relief consequential thereof. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, modification or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal, either before