MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

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

penalty u/s. 274 of the Act and one such notice issued for AY 2002-03 in the case of Smt. Anita Nagendran dated 31/12/12009 reads as follows: ENCLOSURE 1 - Notice Under Section 274 of The Income Tax Act 1961 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PAN: ABFPV7178.I Office of the Assistant Commissione

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

56,700 2002-2003 49,400 2003-2004 50,810 2004-2005 65,800 3. Against this, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the above levy of penalty, raising following grounds:- “(a) The Assessing Officer has erred in levying a concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

56,700 2002-2003 49,400 2003-2004 50,810 2004-2005 65,800 3. Against this, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the above levy of penalty, raising following grounds:- “(a) The Assessing Officer has erred in levying a concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

56,700 2002-2003 49,400 2003-2004 50,810 2004-2005 65,800 3. Against this, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the above levy of penalty, raising following grounds:- “(a) The Assessing Officer has erred in levying a concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

56,700 2002-2003 49,400 2003-2004 50,810 2004-2005 65,800 3. Against this, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the above levy of penalty, raising following grounds:- “(a) The Assessing Officer has erred in levying a concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. SRI.A.SHIHABUDEEN, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

56,700 2002-2003 49,400 2003-2004 50,810 2004-2005 65,800 3. Against this, the assessee carried the appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the above levy of penalty, raising following grounds:- “(a) The Assessing Officer has erred in levying a concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act in the facts and circumstances

M/S. JOSEPH GEORGE & CO.,,PATHANAPURAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,34,304/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of running a Lodge. It also derives rental income from letting out of building to Federal Bank and National Trading Co. For the assessment year

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, passed on 30/03/2023. The addition was confirmed u/s 68 of the Act related to unexplained credit amount to Rs.9,56,04,655/-. The Ld.AO initiated the penalty

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

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 so, the AO made addition of an amount of Rs. 13,88,632/- being the belated remittance

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

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, date of order 22/08/2024. 2 Bader Sultana Kakad 2. Brief fact of the case is that is a Muslim lady aged 56 years have not filed returns for the AY 2016-17 relevant to the PY 2015- 16. The Ld. Jurisdictional AO (JAO), Ward 1, Palakkad, in consequence of the information relating

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of contracts. The appellant firm had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochi (hereinafter called "the AO") based on the information

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of contracts. The appellant firm had not filed return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochi (hereinafter called "the AO") based on the information