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

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

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

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

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

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

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

25. We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the “better affidavit” sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.12.2023, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

MULIYAR AGRICULTURIST WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muliyar Agriculturist Welfare .......... Appellant Co-Operative Society Ltd. 374, Bovikanam Post, Muliyar, Kasaragod [Pan: Aafam1658Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1 & Tps, Kasaragod

25 days in filing this appeal and admit the appeal for disposal on merits. And for this act of kindness, We, as duty bound, shall ever pray,” In the absence of any evidence contrary to the averments made above, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly I condone the delay

THE NEERIKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO 1682,NEERICODE vs. ITO WARD 3, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] vide its order dated 26.10.2021. 2. At the outset, it was observed that the instant appeal, filed on 09.11.2022, is delayed by 317 days. The same is accompanied

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

25,664/-, respectively. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned orders dismissed the appeals exparte. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 4. present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred due to the fact

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

25,664/-, respectively. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned orders dismissed the appeals exparte. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 4. present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred due to the fact

THE MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO, KASARGOD

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

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Muliar Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 & Tps Vs. Kanathur P.O., Kasargod 671542 Kasargod

25 days due to certain unavoidable personal commitments. Therefore, the preparation and filing of the appeal got delayed. The assessment order was received on 15-12-2019 and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 14-1-2020. However, for the reasons stated above, the appeal could be flied only on 2/3/2020. Therefore there occurred a delay

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

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

25 Liyas Justice K.K. Mathew Road, SRM Road Pachalam, Ernakulam 682012 [PAN: AAGFN8053J] vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central Circle - 1, Ernakulam Appellant by: Shri K. Kittu, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

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

25 Liyas Justice K.K. Mathew Road, SRM Road Pachalam, Ernakulam 682012 [PAN: AAGFN8053J] vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central Circle - 1, Ernakulam Appellant by: Shri K. Kittu, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed

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

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

25 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the appellant was engaged in critical year end closing activities and disbursement of pensions to members across 11 wards. Hence, the delay is not willful

NADATHARA GRAMA VIKASANA SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

25 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred as the appellant was engaged in critical year end closing activities and disbursement of pensions to members across 11 wards. Hence, the delay is not willful

THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 751,VAZHAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Vazhakulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No.751, Vazhakulam P O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Aacat 2742 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

25,827/- is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, however, confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,26,856/- being interest income earned from district Treasury Bank SB account. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal with delay of 672 days. 5. The assessee has filed a petition seeking

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

condone the delay\nin filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the\nfollowing grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee:\n\"1.\n2.\n3.\nThis is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment\norder passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and\ndisallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery\nService Co-operative Bank

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. However, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued