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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have head both the sides on application for condonation

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

Section 194IA The assessee had not responded to the notice u/s. 148B of the Act, therefore, based on the information available on record, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 73,15,000/- While doing so the AO made addition on account of time deposit

BAIJU LEKSHMANAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 Baiju Lekshmanan 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits totaling Rs.10587899/- in his bank account maintained with South Indian Bank during the relevant financial

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

THE MUTHALAMADA EAST KSHEERA VYAVASAYA COOP SOCIETY LTD NOP4D,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-2, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. The present appeal is within limitation. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order passed by the learned assessing officer for the assessment year 2016-‘17 is opposed to law, facts and Assessment Year 2016-2017 circumstances of your appellant’s case. 2. The assessing officer

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date Mr. Anil of order 29/03/2022 and order passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 07/09/2022. 2. Both the appeals have common issue. All the appeals are heard together& disposed of together. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee had not filed the return of income

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date Mr. Anil of order 29/03/2022 and order passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 07/09/2022. 2. Both the appeals have common issue. All the appeals are heard together& disposed of together. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee had not filed the return of income

SB COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO K356,SB COLLEGE CAMPUS,CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 THIRUVALLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, THIRUVALLA RANGE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sb College Staff Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Sb College Campus, Chngancherry Kottayam 686101 [Pan: Aalas6719C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,92,23,337/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the interest income earned by the appellant society on investment of surplus funds with commercial banks by holding that such interest income is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed

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

LAILA AGENCIES,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ITO, WARD 2, , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Laila Agencies .......... Appellant Paliakara, Thiruvalla 689101 [Pan: Aaefl0921D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent T.K. Road, Thiruvalla 689101 Appellant By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant. The AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the 2 Laila Agencies Act was issued on 29.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notices u/s. 148 nor notice u/s. 142(1)(ii) of the Act, which

THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 751,VAZHAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Vazhakulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No.751, Vazhakulam P O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Aacat 2742 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs. 2,28,52,683/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction of income earned by the assessee society on the investments held with cooperative bank u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, AO made the addition

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

SHAMSUDEEN ABDUL KHADAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The 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 Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,07,500/- during AY 2017-18 in bank account maintained with Kerala Grameen Bank, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Therefore, the AO 2 Shamsudeen Abdul