M/S.KOTTAKKAL WOOD COMPLEX,KOTTAKKAL vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

68 to 74/Coch/2019 income as undisclosed business income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is initiated for concealment of income," 9. During the course of hearing, the learned for the appellant produced before us order No.TRL-08/06-07 dated 08,08.2007, whereby the penalty proceedings under Section 67

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 69A of the Act and the Assessing Officer was directed to assess accordingly. 7. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO made the addition by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit without considering the purchase bill, sales bills and bank statements produced

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

67,540/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. The Ld.CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act during the course of the search. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or section 69D of the I.T Act, the income\ntax payable shall be charged @ 60% plus surcharge @ 25% of such tax.”\n4.\nThe Ld. DR argued & relied on the order of the revenue\nauthorities.\n5.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions and\nexamined the material available on record. The brief facts

SRI.SUDHEESH KUMAR K,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-4, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

section talks about sums credited in the books of accounts. There is lack of application by the Assessing Officer. Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 4,32,000/- be deleted. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in mobile phone coupons by the name Ä2A Communications” and filed his return of income

WATERWORLD TOURISM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

68 of the Act being unsecured loan received from Mrs. Mary Chandy. It is undisputed fact that the appellant during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration received unsecured loan of Rs. 6,67,50,241/- from Smt. Mary Chandy. When the appellant was called upon to prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the lender

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,08,475/-. I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 10.1 Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated whereby the assessee was directed to explain as to why penalty for concealing the source of income should not be levied. In response to reminder dated

SHRI VISHWAMBHARAN BHASKARAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhviswambharan Bhaskaran Dcit (International Taxation) Tc 2/2094/10, Viswam Towers Trivandrum Adarsh Nagar, Pattom P.O. Vs. Trivandrum 695004 [Pan: Arbpb8095J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs. 30,90,800/- in the course of assessment herein dated 25.11.2016 as upheld in the lower appellate order. 2 Viswambharan Bhaskaran 3. We note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer’s computation in para 2.8 has duly considered the assessee’s sales proceeds

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.FRIDGEHOUSE RETAIL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

67,482 Retail Pvt.Ltd. Balance returned at Natesan Brothers 4,77,03,938 2 Dy. CIT v. Fridgehouse Retail (P.) Ltd. Stock in Trade Closing WDV as on3 1.03.2011 8,81,10,898 Less: Taken over by Fridgehouse 8,81,10,898 8,81,10,898 Retail Pvt. Ltd. Balance retained by Natesan -- Brothers Debtors Closing

SRI.E.UMMER BAVA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

67,020/- by making an addition of Rs.4,23,045/- to the returned income. Subsequently, the CIT, Calicut set aside the assessment order for verifying the submission of the gift amounting to Rs.80,00,000/- received by the assessee during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 25/11/2008

M/S.JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, ALUVA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

section 144B. 8.3 In view of the above discussions, we remit this issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration which shall be decided in accordance with law. This ground of appeal in ITA No. 303/Coch/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7 & 128/Coch/2016 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds: i) Disallowance of interest paid