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

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

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

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

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

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

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM 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

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condone the delay in filing the appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a credit society providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed their return of income on 07/12/2018 declaring a Nil income and claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny

EDAVILANGU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO 3468,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condone the delay in filing the appeals. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a credit society providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed their return of income on 07/12/2018 declaring a Nil income and claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

12 ITA.No.913 & SA.No.202/COCH./2023 15.4. Having regard to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80P, it is necessary to consider Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949 which states that the said Act shall apply to co- operative societies subject to modifications made thereunder. Section 56 begins with a non-obstante clause and states that notwithstanding

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." The first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect, with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11 to 13 have been duly fulfilled

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 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 Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

12 Income tax Officer, ward 2, Aluva, proposing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. It appears that all notices/communications addressed to her were sent to the earlier email id, which belonged to her staff, who had left the job in 2018. The e mail id was changed and updated on the income tax e filing

AYYANTHOLE PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 471,KARIYATTUKARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

12, 2025\nORDER\nPer Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:\nThese three appeals filed by the assessee, being a cooperative\nsociety, pertain to Assessment Years 2017-118, 2018-19, and 2020-21.\nSince the issues involved are common across all years, these appeals are\nheard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of\nconvenience.\n2.\nThere

AYYANTHOLE PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 471,KARIYATTUKARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

12, 2025\nORDER\nPer Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:\nThese three appeals filed by the assessee, being a cooperative\nsociety, pertain to Assessment Years 2017-118, 2018-19, and 2020-21.\nSince the issues involved are common across all years, these appeals are\nheard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of\nconvenience.\n2. There

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

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

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

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 05.05.2021. While addition of Rs. 6,18,71,520/- was made in the 143(1) order, appellant has sought adjudication/relief on this addition in appeal filed against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 5.2.2 Upon due consideration of factual matrix