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

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

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

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

30-10-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 15/05/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20 and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 7 S.A. No. 69/Coch/2025 & Tax effect relating to each Grounds of Appeal ground of appeal (see note below

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

30 days and filed an application for condonation of delay and explained that the new Counsel took some time to study the case file to file the appeal and hence there is a delay. The learned CIT(A) had not considered the issue in detail but rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The assessee filed a circular issued

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

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

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

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

section 80P(1) entitling the society for deduction is generated out of the collective disposal of the labour of the appellant societies. 15.The society does not dispute the correctness of the factual finding that toddy is collected from non-members also. Though this was attempted to be explained by the learned counsel by pointing out that there are persons

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

section 80P(1) entitling the society for deduction is generated out of the collective disposal of the labour of the appellant societies. 15.The society does not dispute the correctness of the factual finding that toddy is collected from non-members also. Though this was attempted to be explained by the learned counsel by pointing out that there are persons

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. We now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee which are as under: “1. It is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11 is infirm and unsustainable

THE MUTHALAMADA EAST KSHEERA VYAVASAYA COOP SOCIETY LTD NOP4D,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-2, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that Assessment Order was passed on 20/02/2024. However, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was instituted on 27/05/2025. In the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in Form

SARAMMA THOMAS THANKACHAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17 Saramma Thomas Thankachan Robin Cottage Nedumpaikulam Ito& Vs. Kundara Po Nfac, Kerala 691 501 Delhi Pan No :Audpt5972D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.S. Panicker, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 9.8.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067491706(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

30-09-2020, 02-08-2021 and on 12-08-2021. As the notices remained un-responded, the assessing officer issued a show cause notice on 20-09-2021. In the absence of any response to the show cause notice also, the assessing officer proceeded Saramma Thomas Thankachan, Kollam Page 3 of 5 tocomplete the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B

KAJAMOIDEEN MOHAMMED HASHIM,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim .......... Appellant 8/351 Kadeeja Manzil, Kadamkode Palakkad 678551 [Pan: Auqpm1241F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Palakkad .......... Respondent

30,000/- treating the cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee, rejecting the explanation that the cash deposits were made out of the gift received from his brother, Shri Thanseer Kaja. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by make an addition of Rs 76,74,400 to the total income as the alleged unexplained investment in the residential building. Hence this appeal” 3. The assessee also filed a condonation application to condone the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal and enclosed an affidavit in support

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

30,97,266.The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28.12.2016, determining total income at Rs. 2,54,33,349. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, he failed to substantiate his claims or produce documentary evidence either regarding the unexplained credits or the cost of improvement

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

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

condoned delay and dismissed the SLP." 14.1 Further, the question whether dismissal of SLP amounts to laying down law in respect of the issue disputed under SLP, has been considered by the ITAT in the case of Moradabad Development Authority, 89 taxmann.com 263 and it was held as under: 7 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. "4 ... …. Further, it is a settled