SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

153A r.w.s.144 21.03.2018 2009-10 30.11.2016 271(1)(c) 25.03.2018 2010-11 31.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2012-13 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2013-14 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2014-15 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 2015-16 30.05.2017 271(1)(c) 26.03.2018 3.1 Thus, there was a substantial delay in filing of appeals before

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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

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

ALZARAFA TRAVEL & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , KOCHI

Accordingly, the Assessment Order, dated 05/03/2024, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 is quashed. Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025 is allowed

1. The search having been conducted on 27.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in completing the* *assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 as section 153C permits assessments under this section only for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

delay could be condoned after recording the reasons. 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has applied the profit of the assessee-Trust for charitable activities which is sufficient for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following Supreme Court judgments: 1) American Hotel and Lodging Association vs. CBDT