SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

26 (Ker.), has held that since provision of section 200A of the I.T.Act was amended to enable computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the I.T.Act at the time of processing of return and said amendment came into effect from 01.06.2015 (in view of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2015 dated 17.11.2015) intimations issued u/s 200A of the I.T.Act dealing with

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

26 (Ker.), has held that since provision of section 200A of the I.T.Act was amended to enable computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the I.T.Act at the time of processing of return and said amendment came into effect from 01.06.2015 (in view of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2015 dated 17.11.2015) intimations issued u/s 200A of the I.T.Act dealing with

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

10 of 19 Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. 3.8 In view of the above, we are condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same

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

10 of 19 Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. 3.8 In view of the above, we are condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

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

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

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

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

Section 234E. It is only on account of delay in appeal filing not being condoned that the assessee is losing out on relief which it would have obtained had the appeal been filed within the time limit prescribed.” 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee became aware of the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act levying late

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS),, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

Section 234E. It is only on account of delay in appeal filing not being condoned that the assessee is losing out on relief which it would have obtained had the appeal been filed within the time limit prescribed.” 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee became aware of the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act levying late

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

Section 234E. It is only on account of delay in appeal filing not being condoned that the assessee is losing out on relief which it would have obtained had the appeal been filed within the time limit prescribed.” 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee became aware of the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act levying late

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

Section 234E. It is only on account of delay in appeal filing not being condoned that the assessee is losing out on relief which it would have obtained had the appeal been filed within the time limit prescribed.” 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee became aware of the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act levying late

M/S. POYANIL HOSPITAL,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ITO, TDS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

section 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. Having heard both the parties and perused the material

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the following grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee: - *"1. This is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and disallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery Service Co-operative Bank Limited

THE ITO, COCHIN vs. M/S.PESCAINDE, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the

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

condone the delay of three days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds of appeals: 1. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 10B in which the assessee must fulfil two conditions i.e., it should be approved by Deputy Director, STPI