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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

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

section 153A (r/w s. 153C) r/w ss. 144 and 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 31.07.2014, for four years, being Assessment Years (AYs.) 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-190, of even date, i.e., 31/7/2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Kochi (CITA), vide a common order dated 20.06.2022. 2. The appeals are delayed

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and treat the return as valid , even if the said defect is not rectified within the period stipulated by AO in its notice u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act, but the said defect stood rectified before assessment is completed. It is admitted position that the AO did not issue any such notice

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

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

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date Mr. Anil of order 29/03/2022 and order passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 07/09/2022. 2. Both the appeals have common issue. All the appeals are heard together& disposed of together. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee had not filed the return of income

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date Mr. Anil of order 29/03/2022 and order passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, date of order 07/09/2022. 2. Both the appeals have common issue. All the appeals are heard together& disposed of together. ITA No. 614/Coch/2025 is taken as lead case. 3. The assessee had not filed the return of income

ALZARAFA TRAVEL & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , KOCHI

Accordingly, Additional\nGround No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025\nis allowed

254 dated 05.03.2024 are bad at law\nas the Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to invoke section\n153C.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred\nin holding that the mention in the assessment order that the\nassessment is completed u/s 153C is an error which is\nprotected by section 292B of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nThe Commissioner

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeals (CIT-A), NFAC to the extent appealed against is against law, equity and justice. 2. The Learned CIT -A grossly erred in partially confirming the disallowance u/s.14A, r.w.r

ARYAND SERVICE CO-OPRERATIVE BANK LTD,ARYAND vs. I.T.O, WARD-2(3), KAWDIAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and decided as above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Delay of 622 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive