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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

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

68, section 69,section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income tax payable

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)

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68

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)

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

69 to 69A cannot be made by the CIT(A) as he is not empowered to do so which has been explained by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs. ITO 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

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

69 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief to the Assessee. The CIT(A) observed that though the Assessee has stated that the funds were sourced from the agricultural income of the directors of the Assessee- Company, no evidence was furnished by the Assessee in support of the same. According

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

section 68 or 69 is, again, contrived and, in any case, of no consequence, even as clarified by the courts

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

section 68 or 69 is, again, contrived and, in any case, of no consequence, even as clarified by the courts

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

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

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or section 69D of the I.T Act, the income\ntax payable shall

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80)(2)(i)(a) cannot be accepted in view

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80)(2)(i)(a) cannot be accepted in view

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 68 and brought to tax the deposits received from the parties u/s. 68 of the Act. 12. As regards the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act would enhance business income of the appellant co-operative society, which qualifies for deduction u/s. 80)(2)(i)(a) cannot be accepted in view

M/S PRESTIGE MARKETING DIVISION,ALUVA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

68 of the Act (or for that matter section 69, which are parimateria, one in relation to the assets

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69

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

69,323/-. 8. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as noted above, confirmed the finding of disallowing 5% of the expenditure booked towards interest paid by the assessee in the subject Assessment Year. However, included the said exclusion as deduction permissible under section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act. 9. The learned Senior Advocate argues that

M/S.SNEHA TRUST FOR CHARITY EDUATION,PALALLAD vs. THE ACIT, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

68 of the I.T.Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that the assessee has not proved the identity and creditworthiness of the persons advancing the amount to the assessee, the genuineness of the transaction and also non production of PAN of the donors. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 The learned

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; SP No.76/Coch/2022 & ITA No.952/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 9 (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69