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

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is pending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are rejected." 5.2.5 The above decision was relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Orient

THE CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, LL139,CHORODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is pending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are rejected." 5.2.5 The above decision was relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Orient

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,EDAPPAL vs. ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

37,26,690/-, which was set off against losses of earlier years. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. completed by the assessments were completed by the ACIT, Tirur (hereafter “the AO”) vide orders dated 27.03.2015 & 08.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKKARA vs. ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

37,26,690/-, which was set off against losses of earlier years. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. completed by the assessments were completed by the ACIT, Tirur (hereafter “the AO”) vide orders dated 27.03.2015 & 08.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

condone the delay of 86 days in filing\nthe present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by\nthe Assessee in the present appeal.\n3.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :\n\"1.\nThe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),\nNFAC u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and\ncontrary

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

37,36,420/- by denying the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: - “In this case, the above provision 80AC(ii) applied for the relevant

M/S.PATHANMTHITTA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay despite it having been admitted. 4. The first issue on merits is the disallowance of provision for expenses, at Rs. 284.48 lacs, claimed by the assessee, a district co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala Act), through debit of it’s Profit and Loss Account (operating statement) for the year, being

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

condonation by the Apex Court in Suo Motu WP(C) No.3/2020, dated 10/01/2022, excluding the period from 15/3/2020 to 28/02/2022 in reckoning the delay in computing limitation under law, and the hearing accordingly proceeded with. The assessee is a company manufacturing electrical cables, pumps, solar water heaters, etc., and trading in electrical and electronic goods. Revision of it’s impugned

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

condoned delay and dismissed the SLP." 14.1 Further, the question whether dismissal of SLP amounts to laying down law in respect of the issue disputed under SLP, has been considered by the ITAT in the case of Moradabad Development Authority, 89 taxmann.com 263 and it was held as under: 7 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. "4 ... …. Further, it is a settled

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 135 days. The condonation petition accompanying the appeal, which is supported by a sworn affidavit dated 29.12.2022 by Shri Simon John, the Director and Principal Officer of the assessee- company, explains

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2 ITA Nos.927-928-942/Coch/2024. Skyline Builders. therein would mutatis mutandis apply to the other appeals, as well. 3. All these appeals are delayed by 47 days. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation petition, we hereby condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience

T.J.MATHAI AND COMPANY,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.J. Mathai & Company .......... Appellant Amigo House, Thoundayil Road Cochin 682036 [Pan: Aahft6856C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 2(1), Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

2 T.J. Mathai and Company the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice, the appellant filed return of income on 13.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 37,41,790/-. Against the said return of income