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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 are not applicable to the appellant". Therefore, the Id. CIT(A) treated the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A

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

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

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

68 of the Act cannot be applied to tax the unexplained deposits in the Bank. However, the same can be taxed under section 69A

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

Section 69A and 68 of the Act to dismiss the appeal of the Assessee vide order impugned by way of the present

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 69A of the Act applies only where the amount is not recorded in the books, therefore learned CIT(A) viewed that the addition was not sustainable. I.T.A. Nos.604&608/COCH/2024 Cijo Joseph 6. On the issue of the capital introduction of Rs. 16,60,478, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 – Drawn from partnership

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 69A of the Act applies only where the amount is not recorded in the books, therefore learned CIT(A) viewed that the addition was not sustainable. I.T.A. Nos.604&608/COCH/2024 Cijo Joseph 6. On the issue of the capital introduction of Rs. 16,60,478, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 – Drawn from partnership

KAIPPALLIL JEWELLERS,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 68/ 69A of the Act merely because the assessee accepted the same after announcement of demonetization scheme. 9. However

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

69A for making the addition, which raises a concern. The learned AR pointed out that the AO did not refer to any specific provision of the Act under which the addition of Rs. 9,22,75,684/- was made, thus arguing that, in the absence of any such invocation, the addition is not warranted. In the absence of a clear