VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under : - Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Sr. ITA No. AY DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 336/Coch/202 2009-10 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 02.02.2023 3 22-23/1049366906(1) 2 337/Coch/202 2013-14 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 28.11.2023 3 22-23/1047678573(1) Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly

RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2017-18 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities action disallowing sec.80P deduction claim, the Revenue first of all submits that

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

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,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

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

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

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

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

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

68 r.w.s. 115 BBE on account of unsecured loan taken other deposits 4 Unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE 5,87,91,516 of the Act on account of source loan/ advances given 5 Cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act 1,57,54,371 6 Disallowance of provisions debited in Profit 46,45,372 & Loss A/c. Total

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

4 ITA.No.775/COCH./2023 [20231 150 taxmann.com 120 (Chennai-Trib.), wherein it has been held as under : “7. Both the sides have beer per perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. In this case, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained credit

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

ABDUL GAFOOR MUHAMMED POTTICHI,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABC BUILDWARE INDIA (P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABC SALES CORPOATION,PAYYANNUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

ABC SALES CORPORATION,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL IRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj