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 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

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and render justice to the appellant and allow this appeal.” 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed with a delay of 6 days. 2.1 It is submitted that, the last date of filing the appeal falls during the period covered by the provision of section

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and render justice to the appellant and allow this appeal.” 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed with a delay of 6 days. 2.1 It is submitted that, the last date of filing the appeal falls during the period covered by the provision of section

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

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 KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 26.03.2022, by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram (Pr. CIT), in respect of the assessee’s assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018. 2. The first issue confronting us is the condonation or otherwise of the 163-day delay attending

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

Section 263 revision order under challenge. 4. Delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19th December, 2022. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 19th December, 2022 4 M/s. Supriya Enterprises Copy to: 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals. The assessee filed condonation petitions explaining the reasons for such delays

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals. The assessee filed condonation petitions explaining the reasons for such delays

BINOY JOHN,TRIVANDRUM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), COCHIN, COCHIN/KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on grounds of delay and latches

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Binoy John .......... Appellant Tc 2/391, Puthnveetil, Ulloor, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Acppj3562K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central, Cochin Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Cochin (Pr. Cit) Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Doctor Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also A Director In The Company Credence Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Acit

Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with memorandum of appeal. 8) That delay in filing the appeal is because of the pre- occupation and commitments I had in my medical profession. 9) That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal.” 5. On a mere reading

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

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

KOOL HOME BUILDERS,ERNAKULAM-MARADU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kool Home Builders Principal Commissioner Of Vi/56, Nh-47 Bypass Income Tax Vs. Maradu, Cochin 682034 Kochi [Pan: Aalfk8274F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 5. The learned PCIT on examination of the assessment records u/s 263 of the Act found that the assessee has claimed deduction of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20, 87,830/- and Rs. 80,51,962/-, the fact of which has not been verified by the AO during