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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

M/S.POPULAR DEALERS,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR TRADERS, PATHANMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR DEALERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR DEALERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.POPULAR DEALERS, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced

M/S.POPULAR TRADERS,PATHANMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,(TDS), ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing these appeals by the assessees and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 4. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. Revenue’s appeals 5. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals are identical except for variance in figures. Hence the grounds raised in ITA No.307/Coch/2018 are reproduced