MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,CIRCLE CENTRAL, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 7,33,77,497/- being the amount paid to Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy & Management (hereinafter called “MPCMS”) towards professional charges/consultancy u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. On further appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had also stated that penalty proceedings u/s. 270A(1) of the Act would be initiated separately. The AO had not specifically mentioned under which limb underreporting was done by the assessee in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case. The AO further disallowed

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254, or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. in the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.03.2015. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the assessment made pursuant to notice

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

40,810/- on account of statutory disallowances, which was made\nin the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act\ndated 20.03.2015.\n6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\ndismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the\nassessment made pursuant to notice u/s. 153A

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,—.. (4) – (6) (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment (for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 to 2007-08) and regular assessments for the subsequent two years, challenging the same on confirmation in first appeal vide orders dated 28.12.2021 (AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07), 27.3.2022 (for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10) and 31.8.2022 (for AY 2015-16), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) or the First