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

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

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

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

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

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

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

13. It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay. In the present case, the delay is of 12 years

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.

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty shall

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

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

DIVYAJYOTHI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION WARD), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condoning the delay happened before the Id Addl/JCIT(A). Ld Addl/JCIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\nIn the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced in court on 20th day of August, 2025\nSd/-\n(INTURI RAMA RAO)\nAccountant Member\nBangalore\nDated, 20th August, 2025\n/ B.K.Parida

THE MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO, KASARGOD

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

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Muliar Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 & Tps Vs. Kanathur P.O., Kasargod 671542 Kasargod

13,99,970/- and claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") of Rs.12,41,456/- from the income from business. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and later on selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section

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

condoning the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public religious trust and they obtained the provisional registration on 27/05/2021. Thereafter they applied for permanent registration and also enclosed the necessary documents along with the said application. The Ld.CIT(E) had rejected the said

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

condoning the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. Page 3 of 5 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public religious trust and they obtained the provisional registration on 27.05.2021. Thereafter they applied for permanent registration and also enclosed the necessary documents along with the said application. The Ld.CIT

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

KODIYIL THAMEEM,PAYYANNUR vs. THE INCME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kodiyil Thameem Abc Sales Corporation, Abc Esquire Payannur, Kannur 670307 [Pan: Afppt3775D] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2025

13,82,690/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Kannur (hereafter “the AO”) vide order dated 10.12.12019 u/s. 143(3) of the 2 Kodiyil Thameem Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) making an addition of Rs. 22,48,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. As regards the issue on merits, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.), has held that since provision of section