PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 3146 days in filing appeals by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted at para 3 of affidavit as below: “That we were not aware of the said order as we had not checked our e-mail

M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

x) of the said Act states that words and expressions used in the NABARD Act, 1981 and not defined either in the said Act or in the RBI Act, but defined in the BR Act, 1949, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the BR Act, 1949. Therefore, we revert back to BR Act, 1949. 15.7. What

ANDIAN KANDY RATHEESH,CALICUT vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuandian Kandy Rateesh The Income Tax Officer 2.2171 A 1, Swastik Circle - 1(1), Tps Vs. Near Civil Station Road Kozhikode Calicut 673020 Pan – Acspr7919M Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The brief facts

M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication 5. In so far as the question whether the employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance which the employer deducts and pays over to the concerned authorities beyond the date prescribed for payment of such contribution but nevertheless the contribution has been