M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

143(2) and 142(1) were issued on various occasions to the assessee requiring it to file requisite documents including cash flow statement and statement ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 of assets and liabilities. The assessee’s case was centralized from Nagaland to Kerala which was challenged without any success before Hon’ble Guwahati High Court vide order dated 25.09.2019. Since

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

2) по penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D. The penalty proceedings should have been initiated u/s 271AAC in place of penalty u/s 270A as initiated in the assessment order

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

2)(a) (i) of the\nIncome-tax Act, which had been granted to them up to Assessment Year\n2007-08.\n3. However, with the introduction of section 80P(4) of the Income-tax\nAct, the scenario changed. In respect of the assessees before us, the\nassessing officer denied their claims for deduction, relying upon section\n80P

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

143(3) on 16.12.2019. The AO, while completing assessments denied the deduction claimed u/s 80P and treated the interest received on deposits with District Co- operative Banks amounting to Rs.41,68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

143(3) on 16.12.2019. The AO, while completing assessments denied the deduction claimed u/s 80P and treated the interest received on deposits with District Co- operative Banks amounting to Rs.41,68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

143(3) on 16.12.2019. The AO, while completing assessments denied the deduction claimed u/s 80P and treated the interest received on deposits with District Co- operative Banks amounting to Rs.41,68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, treated the income declared under the head “Income from Other Sources” as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, and therefore, applied the provisions of section 115-BBE for computing the tax liability of the assessee. It is evident from the record that while assessing

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

2. The facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 18/03/2016 on a total income of Rs.17,12,120/- by making lump sum addition of Rs.3,00,000/- to the income returned by taking the volume of business and discrepancies in the statement of accounts. On perusal of records, it was noticed that

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

2) The interest payable under sub-section (1) shall be reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section. (3) Where the return of income for any assessment year, required by a notice under section 148 or section 153A issued after the determination of income under

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

2) The interest payable under sub-section (1) shall be reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section. (3) Where the return of income for any assessment year, required by a notice under section 148 or section 153A issued after the determination of income under

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The facts and circumstances of the two cases being the same, raising common issues for adjudication, the appeals per taken up together for hearing, and heard together. For technical reasons though; Form 35 being not available on record in Appeal No. 899/Coch/2022, hearing