THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

JOYCE JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Puthenveli, The Income Tax Officer – 2, Puthenvelikkara, Aluva. Ernakulam – 683 594. Vs. PAN: BACPJ8168F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 13-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condoning the delay. 3. Inasmuch as the impugned order is an ex parte and an in limine dismissal of the assessee’s appeal, it was clarified by the Bench that it would be disinclined to adjudicate, and prefer to restore the matter for an adjudication on merits to the file of the ld.CIT(A). While hearing was proceeded with

MOHAMMED ALI ABDULLA,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohammed Ali Abdulla .......... Appellant Erivottkuni House, Payyoili Angadi, Thurayur, Kozhikode-673523. Pan: Cdfpm5769J Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2), Kozhikode. Appellant By: Shri C B M Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

House, Payyoili Angadi, Thurayur, Kozhikode-673523. PAN: CDFPM5769J vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2), Kozhikode. Appellant by: Shri C B M Warrier, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

EEPEES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

house property and denied the other deductions except the 30% towards repair and maintenance as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the license fee received by the assessee is nothing but business income and therefore entitled for the set off of loss and depreciation since the property

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

house property’, ‘income from business, and ‘capital gains’. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 02.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2 Beneesh Kumar 2, 13,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

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

house properties was a pure accidental omission and the assessee was not in receipt of any rent for most parts of the year and at the time of filing the return, this fact was completely overlooked. As a new tax consultant was handling the affairs, on account of dispute in the family, failure to return the income was not intentional

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

house property”. Accordingly, PCIT issued notice us 263 dated 23.11.2021 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order should not be set aside. After considering the submissions made by the appellant the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law. 4. Being

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

MR.SUBRAMANIAN S,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the short delay of 19 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. On merits, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. The order of the Appellate authority to the extent objected to herein is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. B. The appellate authority proceeds on the premise that in spite of several notices, the appellant

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. - 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : - *"1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and contrary

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

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

condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the issue raised by the assessee, the facts are that in the return of income filed, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the capital gain. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not utilized

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the said delay and proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted a paper book enclosing the copies of the five sale deeds and also enclosed the demand drafts taken in the name of the seller Francis D Fernandes and submitted that the loans were given by the 9 persons that