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

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015. 1.1. The appeal preferred by the Revenue was delayed by 60 days. We have

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) dated 18.01.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the 3951 days delay in filing the appeal by holdings as under: - “7. DECISION

ERAMALLOOR SERVICE CO-PERATIVE BANK LTDS NO.1175,CHERTHALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the denial of deduction under section 80P of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the order under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024. Only upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271(1

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the order under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024. Only upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271(1

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”).

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 2 of 12 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 3 of 12 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair, Manjapra, Kerala Page 4 of 12 3. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

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

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

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

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

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

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

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

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

1. The order of the Officer is against law facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA Nos.200 to 203/Coch/2021. Sri.Sabir Ali. 2. The CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not condoning the delay as in similar cases, the department has condoned such delay in the matter of 234E. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the late fees

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it\nis stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the\norder under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024.\nOnly upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024\nissued u/s. 271(1

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

250 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act']\nwhereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeal preferred by the\nAssessee against the Assessment Order, dated 21/12/2018, passed\nunder Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.\nITA No.569/COCH/2025\nWe would first take up ITA No.569/COCH/2025 which is\naccompanied by application seeking condonation

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Act on 01/05/2024 which was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 96 days ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 8 of 19 in both these appeals & accordingly requested to condone the delay of 96 days