← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Chalumuru Venkata Rao, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Chalumuru Venkata Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer #1, Opp. Rtc Complex Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Adxpc8298G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08 .03.2023

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

Ld.CIT(A). Considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On further being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Sri Ranga Motors, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 179/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On further being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Eastern Warehouse Corporation, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 175/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On further being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Tetali Anil Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 174/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On further being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

The Raghunayaka Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chinnayyagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 267/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

after considering the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Unagatla Large Sized Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chagallu Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tanuku

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 255/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

after considering the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

No 1431 Lemellepadu Primary Agricultural Co Op Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guntur

In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 219/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Unagatla Large Sized Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal Ward-2 [Pan : Aaaau3979M] Tanuku आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Raghunayaka Large Sized Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ward-1 D.No.10-122, Near Ramalayam Tadepalligudem Chinnayyagudem West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaeat9533A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

after considering the submissions made by the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

The Kundayam Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO Ward 4, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Santosh P. Abraham, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(1)(A)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax (Appeals) did not considered the same. Aggrieved by the non consideration of the claim u/s 80P, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld AR submitted that the AO during the assessment proceedings has added Rs.2,28,17,912 being the amount received as interest

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

ITA 953/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

section 80AC of the Act, deduction u/s. 80P cannot be allowed as per the amended provisions w.e.f. 1.4.2018. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the amount disallowed u/s. 80P(2) is allowable on merits as per the decision

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

ITA 952/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

section 80AC of the Act, deduction u/s. 80P cannot be allowed as per the amended provisions w.e.f. 1.4.2018. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the amount disallowed u/s. 80P(2) is allowable on merits as per the decision

Assyst International Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 898/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Assyst International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1) Kochi Ii/138-D, Nh -47, Muttam Thaikkattukkara P.O. Kochi 683106 Pan – Aadca0592R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. 2. There Is Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Also An Affidavit Of Cfo Of The Assessee Company Stating, Therein, The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of Reason Stating For Affidavit For Late Filing Of This Appeal, We Are View That There Is ‘Sufficient Cause’ & No Latches Can Be Attributable To The Assessee. Hence, We Condon Delay Of ‘64’ Days In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Ms. K.Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

interference is required, disallowance of Rs.4,31,783/- made by the AO is therefore sustained.” 6. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned A.R. relied on the grounds raised. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the issue is covered in favour

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

appeal before the CIT(A) who sustained the disallowance to the extent of employee’s contribution. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard. Having ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Rafeek, Kerala vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 861/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S. & Sa.No.58/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.861/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rafeek Vs Ito, Ward-3 Kochukaleeckal A.N.Puram Krishnapuram Alappuzha Kappilmekku Kerala-688 011 Alappuzha-690 533 Pan – Akjpr2342F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Suresh Varma, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. The Assessee Also Filed A Stay Application Seeking To Stay The Recovery Of Outstanding Tax Arrears.

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69

made by the AO and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR by referring to para ‘4’ of the affidavit of the assessee filed for condoning the delay, submitted that in appellate

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance. The CIT(Appeals) following various judicial precedents upheld the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and prayed for deleting the disallowance since the contribution

Karimthottuva Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Kollam

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

ITA 849/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Karimthottuva Service Vs. The Assessing Officer, Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 2, No.2594, Kunnathur East, Sasthamkotta, Kollam. Kollam – 690 540. Pan : Aaaak 9696 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR
Section 143Section 144BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

bank. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the denial of deduction u/s.80P. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Page 4 of 9 4. The ld AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision

Shri. Muttamthottil Paulose Joy, Angamaly vs. The ITO Ward 2, Aluva

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/COCH/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the Order without granting an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

Fedbank Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. K. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashanth V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

impugned assessment order in an erroneous fashion which is also prejudicial to the interests of revenue. ” 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising various grounds against the order of the PCIT passed u/s.263. 6. The ld AR made the following submissions – “1. Banking and Non-Banking

M/S. Poyanil Hospital, Kozhencherry vs. The ITO, TDS, Alappuzha

ITA 795/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2013-14 M/S.Poyanil Hospital, Ito, Vs. Poyanil, Tds, Kozhencherry. Alappuzha. Pan :Aacfm 7322 F Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. M. S. Rajagopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

234E of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji

B Hameed, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 676/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Muralidharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the levy of penalty on the same ground. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The ld AR submitted that