THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 05.05.2021. While addition of Rs. 6,18,71,520/- was made in the 143(1) order, appellant has sought adjudication/relief on this addition in appeal filed against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 5.2.2 Upon due consideration of factual matrix

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 05.05.2021. While addition of Rs. 6,18,71,520/- was made in the 143(1) order, appellant has sought adjudication/relief on this addition in appeal filed against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 5.2.2 Upon due consideration of factual matrix

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. ## **ITA No.569/COCH/2025** 2. We would first take up ITA No.569/COCH/2025 which is accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay

M/S.KOSAMATTOM FINANCE P. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

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

2 M/s.Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd. 27.10.2016, by which the Commissioner proposed to invoke section 263 of the Act and the revised asst. Order contained mere allegations/opinion and did not contain any cogent and reliable material or evidence to come to a conclusion that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Aaforesaid

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

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

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)

condone the 3951 days delay in filing the appeal by holdings as under: - “7. DECISION: 7.1. At the outset, it is observed that there is delay in filing of appeal. As per clause (2) section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) 2 Celestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. shall be presented within thirty days

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

143(2) of the 1961 Act . The assesse during the course of assessment proceedings have filed audited financial statements and audit reports as contemplated under the provisions of Section 44AB of the 1961 Act, although it is an admitted position that the returned loss was not revised by filing revised return of income. Before proceeding further, it is important

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. During the course of hearing we find that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed assessee’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.53,79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. During the course of hearing we find that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed assessee’s section 80P deduction claim of Rs.53,79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

143(3) read with section 153A Of the Act for the AY 2008-09 solely on the ground the Department Valuation Report was not considered by the Assessing officer. It was submitted that this exercise of revisionary power by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is erroneous for the reason that the Department Valuation Report was received

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

143(3) read with section 153A Of the Act for the AY 2008-09 solely on the ground the Department Valuation Report was not considered by the Assessing officer. It was submitted that this exercise of revisionary power by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is erroneous for the reason that the Department Valuation Report was received

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

143(3) read with section 153A Of the Act for the AY 2008-09 solely on the ground the Department Valuation Report was not considered by the Assessing officer. It was submitted that this exercise of revisionary power by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is erroneous for the reason that the Department Valuation Report was received

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

143(3) read with section 153A Of the Act for the AY 2008-09 solely on the ground the Department Valuation Report was not considered by the Assessing officer. It was submitted that this exercise of revisionary power by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act is erroneous for the reason that the Department Valuation Report was received