SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 273B; and - Pass any other relief as deemed just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Total Tax Effect Rs. 1,50,000 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a subsidiary of National Paints Holdings Ltd. and because of the internal disputes among the Directors, the company was unable

THRISSUR DISTRICT NRI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay for filing the return and requesting that the return

IWA INDIA FOUNDATION,KOLLAM vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KOCHI

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

condone such delays.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "12A", "10AB", "10AC", "119(2)(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the rejection of Form 10AB solely

OTTAPALAM TALUK PRAVASI WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ottapalam Taluk Pravasi Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. P.O. Mezhathur, Ottapalam Palakkad 679534 [Pan: Aaao7715K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -2, Palakkd Appellant By: Shri Alan Dev, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024

section 80AC of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 9 days. The 4. delay stated to have occurred as the order of the CIT(A) was served through email was overlooked by inadvertence. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay

ANGAMALY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 714,ANGAMALY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, ALUVA, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.714, Angamaly So Vs. Ernakulam Ito Ward-1 & Tps Kerala 683 572 Aluva Pan No : Aacaa1050B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 21.6.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065923392(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Angamaly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Angamaly Page 2 Of 6

condoned the delay in filing the return of income for the AY 2019-20 beyond the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 119

THRISSUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNKUNNAM vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 80AC of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO made addition of cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals in the best judgement assessment order passed by him. Being aggrieved by the above assessment

THRISSUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. R 1189,THIRUVAMBADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 80AC of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO made addition of cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals in the best judgement assessment order passed by him. Being aggrieved by the above assessment

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court

ELANTHOOR SERVICE CO OPER BANK LIMITED,ELANTHOOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NORTH BLOCK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Elanthoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Elanthoor P.O., Pathanamthitta 689643 [Pan: Aaaae1867C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thiruvalla Appellant By: Shri T.T. Biju, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

section 80AC is arbitrary and illegal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR submitted that the learned CIT, (Hqrs.) (Tech) u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act vide order dated 07.08.2024 had rejected the application for condonation of delay

TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm

condoned the delay in filing the appeal in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s. 119(2)(b) of Trivandrum District Electricity Board Employees Co-op. Society the Act r.w. circular No. 13/2023 dated 26.07.2023. Copies of the proceedings of the CCIT are filed before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused

TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES CO-OP SOCIETY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm

condoned the delay in filing the appeal in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s. 119(2)(b) of Trivandrum District Electricity Board Employees Co-op. Society the Act r.w. circular No. 13/2023 dated 26.07.2023. Copies of the proceedings of the CCIT are filed before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused

KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO 2147,KARTHIKAPPALLY vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kumarapuram Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kumarapuram Village, Thamalakkal P.O. Haripad, Alappuzha 690549 [Pan: Aaabk0740M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sabu, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant could not file the return of income within the prescribed period on account of factors which are beyond the control of the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, after making reference

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

condone the said delay in filing the return of income but only the CBDT has power u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore denied the claim made by the assessee. 10. In this issue, we have come across several orders of the Hon’ble Tribunals in which it was categorically held that the authorities should have considered

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTHUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,PERUMANUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 12 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. However, we make it clear that in case the application moved by the assessee for condonation of delay is allowed by the learned Pr. CIT (Exemption), CPC shall amend the intimation accordingly by taking into consideration the order passed

COCHIN SHIPYARD EMPLOYEES MUTUAL AND PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST,COCHIN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 12 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal filed by the assessee. However, we make it clear that in case the application moved by the assessee for condonation of delay is allowed by the learned Pr. CIT (Exemption), CPC shall amend the intimation accordingly by taking into consideration the order passed

KERALA UNIVERSITY STAFF HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Kerala University Staff Housing .......... Appellant Co-Opertive Society Ltd. University Campus Senat House Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram 695033 [Pan: Aajak0089P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram

section 80AC of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozihilali Sahararana Sangham [2023] 459 ITR 730 (Ker). 4. Being aggrieved

ELOOR VANITHA KSHEMODHARANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL vs. ITO WARD -1 &TPS, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-Op Society Ltd. ......... Appellant Fact Dormetry Room No. 27, Kochi 683501 [Pan: Aaaae8921H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tds, Aluva .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.K. Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. No Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed By The Appellant Society Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Appellant On 30.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148 The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 06.06.2023 Declaring

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s. 148 the appellant filed return of income on 06.06.2023 declaring 2 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-op Society Ltd. total income of Rs. 1250/- after claiming deduction