M/S. HEERA KERALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Heera Kerala Developers Acit - Circle 1(1) Pvt. Ltd. Thiruvananthapurm Tc 15/1553(5), Heera Park Vs. Mp Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud Thiruvananthapurm 695014 Pan – Aabch8810R Appellant Respondent

71,56,000 being sum received from JM Financial Trustee Company Private Limited for subscribing to the debentures 2 M/s. Heera Kerala Developers Pvt. Ltd. issued by the Appellant should be added to the total income of the Appellant under section 68

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.

71,758 computed as maturity proceeds of chitty as discussed above, the difference amounting to Rs. 1,98,242 is treated as unexplained credits liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 68

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.

71,758 computed as maturity proceeds of chitty as discussed above, the difference amounting to Rs. 1,98,242 is treated as unexplained credits liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 68

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

71,000 as income from other sources by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the I.T.Act. It is ordered

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

71,759/- in respect of employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI), (c) disallowance of interest of INR.12,68,911/- under Section

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

71,379. In the said assessment, the Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income of Rs.12,36,000 as income from other sources by invoking provisions of section 68

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

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

71,420 Less : Taken over by Fridgehouse 2,13,67,482 2,13,67,482 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

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

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

68,316/- was not considered by him. Insofar as the amount that has been taken by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the absence of any details with regard to earning of income and the persons from whom the money was received, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the entire amount as income. Insofar

SARAMMA THOMAS THANKACHAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17 Saramma Thomas Thankachan Robin Cottage Nedumpaikulam Ito& Vs. Kundara Po Nfac, Kerala 691 501 Delhi Pan No :Audpt5972D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.S. Panicker, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 9.8.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067491706(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

section 249(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Act as the assessee could not show any sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the reasons cited by the assessee are not found tenable and thus the prayer for condonation of delay filed by the assessee is not admissible

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

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

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly