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

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

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

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

KUNNATH PAPER MILLS (P) LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), THRISSUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2011-12 Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd. 6/525, Meenkara Dam (Po) Muthalamada Ito Vs. Palakkad 678 507 Ward-1(2) Kerala Thrissur Pan No : Aaack9941P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Respondent By : Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 O R D E R Perprakash Chand Yadav: Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 3.1.2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Six Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Issue Which Is To Be Decided Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.54 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) To The Income Of The Assessee.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) to the income of the assessee. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee craved that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, an opportunity of being heard may kindly be given to the assessee. Kunnath Paper Mills

KAOSER CHARITABLE TRUST,KANNUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Act and ITA No.487/Coch/2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16 is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Since both these appeals are relating to common assessee, we are deciding these appeals by way of this common order. 3. At the outset, it is noted that both these appeals have been decided

KAOSER CHARITABLE TRUST,KANNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for

Bench: S/Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

68 of the Act and ITA No.487/Coch/2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16 is against levy of penalty u/s.272A(2)(e) of the Act. Since both these appeals are relating to common assessee, we are deciding these appeals by way of this common order. 3. At the outset, it is noted that both these appeals have been decided

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

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

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

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

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

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.

6. As for the genuineness of the loan, the assessee was asked to furnish the address of the assessee and as furnished by the assessee, a summons under section 131 of the Act was issued on 15-10-2008 to Shri Nathmal Jasram, C/o Rahul Finance, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079 requiring him to give evidence and to furnish

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.

6. As for the genuineness of the loan, the assessee was asked to furnish the address of the assessee and as furnished by the assessee, a summons under section 131 of the Act was issued on 15-10-2008 to Shri Nathmal Jasram, C/o Rahul Finance, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079 requiring him to give evidence and to furnish

DARSHANA COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 250(6) of the Act, and are thus not valid in law. For each of the points arising for determination, respective cases of both the sides, is to be followed by reasoned orders, taking into consideration the material on record – for which the first appellate authority can call the assessment record of the assessee, and decided issuing definite