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)

68 to 69D. 4.9 The provisions of 115BBE taxing certain types of income @ 60% were brought on statute by Finance Act, 2017 after demonization, after introduction of prevention of Black Money (Undisclosed foreign income & assets) Act; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 154 of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the denial

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68 taxmann.com 310 (Kol)] held this is a case of setting aside of the assessment and consequently the time limit for completion of assessment / reassessment is governed by the provisions of section 153(2A) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that the assessment order pursuant to the order of the ITAT is barred

E T DEVASSY AND SONS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Bench: the Assessing Officer who partly agreed but disagreed finally with the same and made addition in the quantum

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the learned Commissioner

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Act. I find merit into the contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the Id. CIT(A) to assess a particular item under different provision of the Act what the Assessing Officer had done without giving a specific notice to the assessee regarding such action

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

250. "As per Circular No. 37/2016, the board has accepted the settled position that the disallowances made under section 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 438 etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances. relatedto the business activity against which the chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490,\nwhere in a batch of appeals challenging assessments completed under\nsection 147 read with 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, the High\nCourt, after considering section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, various\nprovisions of the Kerala Act, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the bye-\nlaws of the Societies

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Assessee has also SA No. 79/COCH/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 filed Stay Application No.79/Coch/2025 in ITA No.571/Coch/2025

POTTOLIL AGRO MILLS,PERUMBAVOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(in short, the Act') for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order\n28/07/2025. The impugned order is emanated from the order of the\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aluva (in short, 'Ld.AO') order passed\nunder section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 19/12/2019.\n2.\nThe brief fact

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No . 1 863/Coch/2 2017- ITBA/NFAC/S/250 18.10.20 023 18 /2023- 23 24/1057185745(1) 2 792/Coch/2 2018- ITBA/NFAC/S/250 22.08.20 023 19 /2023- 23 24/1055332576(1) Heard both parties at length. Case files perused. 2. The assessee

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - The Trivandrum Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No . 1 863/Coch/2 2017- ITBA/NFAC/S/250 18.10.20 023 18 /2023- 23 24/1057185745(1) 2 792/Coch/2 2018- ITBA/NFAC/S/250 22.08.20 023 19 /2023- 23 24/1055332576(1) Heard both parties at length. Case files perused. 2. The assessee

KEEZHUPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of ITA No.567 & 568/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 & 2022-23 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2024, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Order of the learned Assessing

KEEZHUPARAMBA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of ITA No.567 & 568/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 & 2022-23 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2024, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Order of the learned Assessing

KUTHUR JOHNY VINUFRANCIES,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 250 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that assessee did not fully establish creditworthiness and genuineness, and hence restricted the disallowance to Rs.33,00,000/- only, sustaining the AO’s action to that extent. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by partly sustaining of the addition hence filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered

SRI.ANWARSADATH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

SRI.ANWARSADATH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

V.K.M FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,TAMILNADU vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Vkm Feeds Private Limited, Acit, Central Circle, 2, Reservoir Street, Thrissur Venkatesa Colony, Vs. Pollachi-642001 Tamil Nadu Pan : Aafcv2454D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Kochi-3 [‘Ld.CIT(A)’] for the AY. 2017-18. 2. The only issue that arises for our consideration, in the present appeal, is whether an addition can be made in a proceeding initiated 2 u/s. 153C of the Act merely on the basis