DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

02 days is condoned by considering the Revenue’s condonation petition explaining the delay(s) and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 2 ITA No.401/Coch/2023. State Bank

SHASTHA ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 3, KOLLAM

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose of the matters on merits. 5. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019–20. The intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued by the CPC, Bengaluru on 22.02.2020, wherein the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI amounting to Rs.19,02

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

02,354.The AO issued notice under Section 133(6) to Shri Roy Vayalat seeking confirmation, but no response was received. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain why the sum of Rs. 2,33,60,354 should not be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee sought time but failed to furnish any further

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”).

02-08-2021 and on 12-08-2021. As the notices remained un-responded, the assessing officer issued a show cause notice on 20-09-2021. In the absence of any response to the show cause notice also, the assessing officer proceeded Saramma Thomas Thankachan, Kollam Page 3 of 5 tocomplete the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B

M/S MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO , THIRUVALLA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee was attributable to the change of auditor and therefore we are of the view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the specified time. Accordingly, we condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 3. The only issue

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner ought to have convinced with the fact that depreciation is an allowable application of income u/s. 11, as the amendment is prospective in nature and effective from assessment year

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant

DR. K.E. MOORTHY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

condone the delay of four days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. I.T.A. Nos.637 to 643/Coch/2008 and 246 to 248/Coch/2019 8. The assessee has raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO in the levy of penalty 2. The AO erred in estimating the income

KARADEN PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKODE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkaraden Properties & Developers The Income Tax Officer 27/311-C V K Complex, Ig Road Kozhikode Vs. Mavoor Road, Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aajfk7212K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69/69A addition(s) etc., without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion 2 Karaden Properties and Developers thereupon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh verification

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

THE KADAVALUR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO3821,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(3) of the Act dated 19/11/2018 for assessment year (AY) 2010-2011. The assessee has also applied for stay of it’s demand, and which, accordingly, was posted for hearing along with. 2.1 The appeal is filed with a delay of 25 days, which stands explained as on account of the change in the incumbent Principal Officer

MANNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condonation petition accompanied by an Affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee, explaining the reasons for the delay. 3. The brief facts as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are like this, that the assessee is a co- 2 ITA No.667/Coch/2024. Mannam SC.B Limited. operative society filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year