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

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

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

MS.KALLIYATH CYRIL RAJU,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

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

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

money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter in this explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by uitlising (wholly or in part) his income for any previous year; or (ii) any income based on any entry in any books of account or other documents or transactions

SRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). As there was denial of natural justice, it is prayed that the matter may be sent back to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for fresh disposal as per law. 4. Without prejudice to the ground relating to the denial of natural justice

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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”).

unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NUMBER 2147 THAMALLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant u/s. 69 of the Act vide assessment order dated 15.03.2022 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Before us it is submitted that

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant vide order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All cash deposits are duly

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

unexplained money of the appellant vide order\ndated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n5.\nBeing aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)\ncontending that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P of the\nAct and the cash deposit s were made out of the money received. All\ncash deposits are duly