KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KANNUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

delay which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E), Kochi. Further, the assessee filed revised form 10B which was not considered by any of the authority. The filling of Form No. 10B is a procedural direction in in the proviso. The assessee is registered u/s 12A and followed the direction as per the Act during filing of return. For filing

THE ITO, WD-2(4), TRIVANDRUM vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

125. PAN : AAAAM5703D. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.398/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Vilappil Service Co- Ward – 2(4) Vs. operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. VP/V/209, Peyad P.O. Peyad Junction Trivandrum - 695 573. PAN : AAAAV4785E. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.404/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Chayam Service Co- Ward – 2, Range – 2 Vs. operative Bank Ltd., PO Thiruvananthapuram. Chettchel

THE ITO, WD-2(3), RANGE-2, , TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

125. PAN : AAAAM5703D. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.398/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Vilappil Service Co- Ward – 2(4) Vs. operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. VP/V/209, Peyad P.O. Peyad Junction Trivandrum - 695 573. PAN : AAAAV4785E. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.404/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Chayam Service Co- Ward – 2, Range – 2 Vs. operative Bank Ltd., PO Thiruvananthapuram. Chettchel

THE ITO,WD-2(4), TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.MYLACHEL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

125. PAN : AAAAM5703D. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.398/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Vilappil Service Co- Ward – 2(4) Vs. operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. VP/V/209, Peyad P.O. Peyad Junction Trivandrum - 695 573. PAN : AAAAV4785E. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.404/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Chayam Service Co- Ward – 2, Range – 2 Vs. operative Bank Ltd., PO Thiruvananthapuram. Chettchel

HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A) grossly erred in estimating the agricultural income at 125% of agricultural income for the immediately preceding year without appreciating the facts of the case in the proper perspective. He further submits that the appellant had submitted bills in respect