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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

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

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should

SRI.PURUSOTHAMAN K.K.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, , THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condone the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A: The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. B: The averments made before the first appellate

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

condone the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs.60,25,240/- as capital expenditure. 4. Briefly stated, the facts

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the following grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee: - *"1. This is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and disallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery Service Co-operative Bank Limited

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay of 32 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. ITA No.505/Coch/2018. 2 M/s.NSS Karayogam Br. No.1365. 3. The solitary issue that is raised by the Revenue is whether the assessment completed vide order dated 28.03.2014 pursuant to ITAT’s order dated 21.10.2011 was barred by limitation

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

ENERGY MANAGEMENT CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with directions as above

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return of income as he was under treatment for psychological issues. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 9,96,672/- vide order dated 27.09.2021. 4. Being aggrieved

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. Delay of 32 days each in both these cases is condoned as per condonation 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

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. Delay of 32 days each in both these cases is condoned as per condonation 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

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner ought to have convinced with the fact that depreciation is an allowable application of income u/s. 11, as the amendment is prospective in nature and effective from assessment year

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

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

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment

GOVERNMENT MENTAL HOSPITAL,KUTHIRAVATTAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), KOZHIKODE

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

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

32,490 3 ITA Nos.275-278/Coch/2021. Government Mental Health Centre. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. There was delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay as well as on merits. The CIT(A), while dismissing the case on merits, relied on the judgment