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

8 creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in relation to the introduction of capital by its partners. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the solitary addition made by the AO vide assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act was only under section 68

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

section 68 of the Act is not income from the assessee's business, it has been wrongly ordered to be treated as assessee's business income. We notice that the case law of CIT vs. Abdul Rahman Industries (2007) 293 ITR 475(Mad.) and Chensing Ventures (supra) has been relied upon by the assessee which is sought

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

68 of the I.T.Act in respect of issuance of OPCCPS. The CIT also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case 4 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. of Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO [(2018) 409 ITR 109 (Ker.)] and held that when a private limited company receives share application money above

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

8,50,000 under the head “Income from Other Sources”, which was not duly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 24/09/2018 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, treated the aforesaid income as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and taxed the same

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 68, involving an amount of ₹1231760. The assessee has raised similar contentions as in the earlier appeal. As the facts and issues are identical to those in ITA No.65/Coch/2024, our decision in that appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly, the addition of ₹1231760is also confirmed and ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 is dismissed. 8

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 68, involving an amount of ₹1231760. The assessee has raised similar contentions as in the earlier appeal. As the facts and issues are identical to those in ITA No.65/Coch/2024, our decision in that appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly, the addition of ₹1231760is also confirmed and ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 is dismissed. 8

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

68) (Kerala) (c) CIT Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (234 ITR 201) (Ker.) 4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. The facts

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

68) (Kerala) (c) CIT Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (234 ITR 201) (Ker.) 4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. The facts

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

68) (Kerala) (c) CIT Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (234 ITR 201) (Ker.) 4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. The facts

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

68) (Kerala) (c) CIT Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (234 ITR 201) (Ker.) 4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. The facts

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

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

68) (Kerala) (c) CIT Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation (234 ITR 201) (Ker.) 4. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Trivandrum on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 5. The facts

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. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8

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 68 of the Act was incorrectly invoked by Learned CIT(A). We find merit in the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee to the extent it was contended that the Learned CIT(A) had failed to 4 Assessment Year 2017-2018 consider the material placed before the Learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. We note

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

68 of the Income Tax in respect of deposit accepted from the members. 7. The learned officers erred in invoking the provision of the Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act which is not warranted in this case. 8

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax in respect of deposit accepted from the members. 7. The learned officers erred in invoking the provision of the Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act which is not warranted in this case. 8

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S. THOMSON METALS, TRICHUR

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

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

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the I.T.Act primarily for the reason that the creditors are identified and the additions are to be made in the hands of the creditors. This reasoning of the CIT(A) goes against the provisions of section

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.

section 68 of the Act and is so assessed. 8. On examination of the case, it was further observed

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.

section 68 of the Act and is so assessed. 8. On examination of the case, it was further observed