PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD -2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pantheerankav Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Olavanna, Kozhikode 673019 [Pan: Aaaap6394F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. The Appellant Had Not Filed Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant society had not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it can be said that there was no claim made in the return of income. In the absence of claim

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 7.8 In the case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO, (ITA No. 64/Srt/2023) the Income

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”).

139(4) of the Act. In view of this, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued. The assessee had also not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notices

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

delay, in the absence of any\nevidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the\nappellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing\nthe appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n8.\nThe learned counsel for the assessee contended that the\naddition made

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the reason that the return of income was filed belatedly. This issue is no longer res integra, as it is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoned the delay in filing the return under Section 139 of the Act and argued that the return of income filed by the assessee is in order and therefore assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act and prayed to allow the appeal. 4. The learned D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower

THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 1268 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was not aware of the intimation issued by the CPC and the delay is also caused due the death

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

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

139(1) of the Act. 3 ITA No. 423/Coch/2025 & SA No. 61/C/2025 Sacred Heart Public School 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. The appellant had filed a petition seeking condonation of delay

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

VALAPAD SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VALAPAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

delayed filing of return, especially since a condonation petition was pending with the CBDT. The Ld. CIT(A), however, followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT [(2023) 450 ITR 730 (Ker)] dated 14.03.2023, wherein it was held that the deduction under section