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

SACRED HEART PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal relates the eligibility of the appellant trust for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed return of income under the provisions of section

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

CHRIST THE KING CHURCH,KOCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

12A (1)of the Act by doing so the CIT (E) has gone against the decision of the honorable Gujarath High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Ahmedabad Vs Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria where the Court relied on the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat reported

INFANT JESUS CHURCH,KOCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : Na

12A (1)of the Act by doing so the CIT (E) has gone against the decision of the honorable Gujarath High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Ahmedabad Vs Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria where the Court relied on the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat reported

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX COMMISIONER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the file of NFAC, however from the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that no proper service of notice

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n6. At the outset, I find that the NFAC issued notices through\nITBA portal, with remained uncomplied with. In my considered\nopinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as\nspecified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax\nAct

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset we found that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the addition. We found from para 1 of the order

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

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

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2012-13 Association For Welfare Of The Handicapped Awhm Square Building Pavamani Road Ito Exemption Ward Vs. Calicut Kozhikode Kozhikode 673 001 Kerala Kerala Pan No :Aaata3349L Appellant Respondent Sp No.33/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.199/Coch/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Association For Welfare Of The Handicapped Awhm Square Building Pavamani Road Ito Exemption Ward Vs. Calicut Kozhikode Kozhikode 673 001 Kerala Kerala Pan No : Aaata3349L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Respondent By : Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 Association For Welfare Of The Handicapped, Kozhikode Page 2 Of 4 O R D E R Perprakash Chand Yadav: Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 20.1.2023 Having Din No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048950777(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

12A of the Act from the Income Tax Department on 19.6.1975 and claiming the benefits of section 11 & 13 of the Act. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring nil income. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and thereafter selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings

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 12A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeals. 6. The learned A.R. submits that the application moved by the appellant trust for condonation of delay

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 12A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeals. 6. The learned A.R. submits that the application moved by the appellant trust for condonation of delay

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions