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

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

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

27......... 28. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that

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

27 days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, which reads as under: - “Sub: Condonation of delay in submission of appeal. Our income tax assessment for the A.Y 2017-18 was completed by the Assessment Unit of the Income tax department u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order

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

27-10-2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay is totally illegal and unjustified. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merits. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in not considering, in the right

K.L ABDUL SATHAR,SOUTH BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2009-10 K.L. Abdul Sathar South Bazar Kannur 670002 Vs. Dcit Kannur Pan No : Aaffk4769B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060194335(1) For The Ay 2009-10 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of timber, tiles and other allied goods. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 24.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,79,760/-. The return

THE NALLEPILLY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NOR43,NALLEPILLY vs. ITO, WARD-1 ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

27 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred due to the procedural delays in getting the permission from the higher authorities. It is prayed that the delay is not willful, therefore, the delay may be condoned. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition

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

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

27 days. We find the reasons as genuine and bona fide and, accordingly, 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

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

27 days. We find the reasons as genuine and bona fide and, accordingly, 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

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

27 days. We find the reasons as genuine and bona fide and, accordingly, 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

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

27 days. We find the reasons as genuine and bona fide and, accordingly, 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

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Section 143(3) of the Act for the\n Assessment Year 2016-2017.\n2.\nThe present appeal was delayed by 86 days. In the application\nseeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the delay was\ninadvertently caused on account of the impugned order having been\nreceived in the spam folder. The Assessee only got knowledge of the\nimpugned

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

27,469/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee fails to succeed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed Form 10B with delay which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E), Kochi. Further, the assessee

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KANNUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

27,469/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee fails to succeed. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed Form 10B with delay which was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E), Kochi. Further, the assessee

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

27-11-2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 19-02-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 20/03/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2011-12 and raised the following grounds. Page 2 of 7 “A. The impugned order to the extent objected

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition under the head underreporting of closing stock