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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

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

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show

CELESTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,AMBALAMUGAL vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), ERNALUAM

In the result, appeal is "Dismissed"

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhcelestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1) Aiswarya Towers Cr Building, Is Press Road Hoc Junction, Ambalamugal Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682302 [Pan: Aaccc6737F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the 3951 days delay in filing the appeal by holdings as under: - “7. DECISION: 7.1. At the outset, it is observed that there is delay in filing of appeal. As per clause (2) section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) 2 Celestial Infrastructure (P) Ltd. shall be presented within thirty days

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee in column 14 & 15 of form no. 35 filed on 28.09.2022 on the reasons that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.12.2023, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal

DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

Section 234E. It is only on account of delay in appeal filing not being condoned that the assessee is losing out on relief which it would have obtained had the appeal been filed within the time limit prescribed. 5. In view of the above, we pray before you that the appeal may please be allowed.” 2. Brief facts

THE NEERIKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO 1682,NEERICODE vs. ITO WARD 3, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable, and the stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] vide its order dated 26.10.2021. 2. At the outset, it was observed that the instant appeal, filed on 09.11.2022, is delayed by 317 days. The same is accompanied

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80AC of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P after making several disallowances. The AO assessed income of Rs. 94,66,941/- under the head ‘business’. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal placing reliance on 3 ITA 371 & 372/Coch/2025/SA 51 & 52/C/2024 The Aroor

THE KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THODUPUZHA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

condone the impugned delay of 35 days in the instant appeal 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. Next substantive ground in respect of sec.80P

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

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

INDITRADE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 56 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay which is duly supported

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the appellant as the email ID provided in Form 35 belongs to the staff of the Chartered Accountant’s office who submitted the appeal. Since the staff left employment