DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay was also filed. The assessee had submitted written submission in support

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

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

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

220(2) amounted to Rs.1,360.00. Also humbly submit before you that the levy of interest under section 234E before 31/03/2015 is against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. For this reason, we have the right to challenge the demand with appellate authorities. Even without serving the demand notice to my section how can I proceed against the demand

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

220(2) amounted to Rs.1,360.00. Also humbly submit before you that the levy of interest under section 234E before 31/03/2015 is against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. For this reason, we have the right to challenge the demand with appellate authorities. Even without serving the demand notice to my section how can I proceed against the demand

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS),, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

220(2) amounted to Rs.1,360.00. Also humbly submit before you that the levy of interest under section 234E before 31/03/2015 is against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. For this reason, we have the right to challenge the demand with appellate authorities. Even without serving the demand notice to my section how can I proceed against the demand

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

220(2) amounted to Rs.1,360.00. Also humbly submit before you that the levy of interest under section 234E before 31/03/2015 is against the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961. For this reason, we have the right to challenge the demand with appellate authorities. Even without serving the demand notice to my section how can I proceed against the demand

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 30/12/2016for AY 2014-15. 2. It was observed that the assessee’s appeal, filed on 19/9/2018, is delayed by 88 days. The adjournment application dated 27/11/2018 and the accompanying affidavit dated 29/11/2018 by the Secretary of the appellant-bank, however, furnishes no reason, much less sufficient, that

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

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

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

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

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

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

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

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

220(2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

220(2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

220(2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly

M/S NOORUL ISLAM TRUST,THODUPUZHA vs. ACIT (TDS), KOCHI, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

220(2) of the Act which are no more appealable u/s. 246A as well as 253 of the Act before the CIT(A) as well as this tribunal respectively. These six appeals stand rejected therefore as not maintainable.Sois the outcome of the corresponding stay applications SA Nos. 17, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 27/Coch/2022. 4. The legal position would hardly