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 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 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

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

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

x 600mm vitrified tiles of 1st quality is only Rs.41/-per Sq.ft. • In the case of Internal Electrical Installations the DVO has taken the value as 12.5% of the total RCC structural cost arrived at by him, which is a highly inflated figure where as the actual amount spent was only 5.5% of structural cost. It was submitted that this

SRI.PURUSOTHAMAN K.K.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, , THIRUVALLA

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

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

condone the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A: The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. B: The averments made before the first appellate

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