PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

114 CTR (Bom) 81. ii)Iron Trading Co vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H)] iii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)] 3.9.1 The Ld. AR submitted that it is a crystallized position of law that when two opinions are possible, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act must not be exercised. He relied

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

114 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit stating that the delay has occurred due to the change of auditor who was handling the matters of the assessee. As per the learned A.R. there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time and accordingly prayed to condone the delay

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs.60,25,240/- as capital expenditure. 4. Briefly stated, the facts