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

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

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

delays in filing these appeals, which were condoned by the tribunal. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction under Section 80P, and the CIT(A) granted partial relief.", "held": "The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section

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

delays, which were condoned by the Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest received from scheduled banks and treasury. This decision was based on the precedent set in Mavilayi Service Co-operative

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.

142(1) was issued calling for various details. The assessee also furnished various details as sought for by the ld. AO and an order under Section 143(3) of the Act was made on 29.10.2021 by 2 SA No. 160/Coch/2023 Kattappana Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. accepting the return of income. While making the demand notice and the income

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

ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTDS NO.1175,CHERTHALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

3 ITA No.820/Coch/2024. Eramalloor SC.B Ltd. under Chapter-VIA, which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act, in the return of income, no such deduction shall be allowed. Accordingly, the AO, vide order dated 11/12/2019, passed under section 144 of the Act, computed the total income of the assessee at INR 20,92,423, without granting the deduction under

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

INDITRADE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Incorrect addition made under section 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in relation to purchases made totalling to Rs. 3,34,87,077. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income

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

142(1) nor to the letters issued to the appellant on 10.05.2019 and 29.07.2019. In the circumstance the AO proceeded with making best judgement assessment invoking provisions of section 144 at a total income of Rs. 2,54,78,140/-. While doing so, the AO had denied deduction u/s. 80P of the Act and made several disallowances. 3. Being aggrieved

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

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 559/Coch/2023 for AY2014-15 are stated herein. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. No regular return of income

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

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal bearing ITA No. 559/Coch/2023 for AY2014-15 are stated herein. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. No regular return of income

THE NEERIKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO 1682,NEERICODE vs. ITO WARD 3, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] vide its order dated 26.10.2021. 2. At the outset, it was observed that the instant appeal, filed on 09.11.2022, is delayed by 317 days. The same is accompanied

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

3 Vengola Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only when he received a notice u/s. 270A of the Act dated 24.04.2024 from the NFAC. It is submitted that the delay occurred was not at all intentional and not with any malafide motive. Thus, he prayed that the delay be condoned