VALAPAD SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VALAPAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

1), disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act and added an income of Rs. 2,41,62,830 income of the assessee. The assessee contended that it had filed a condonation petition before the CBDT explaining the reasons for the delay

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 HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 135 days. The condonation petition accompanying the appeal, which is supported by a sworn affidavit dated 29.12.2022 by Shri Simon John, the Director and Principal Officer of the assessee- company, explains

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

1) of the Act and later on selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P of the Act of 3 M/s. Muliar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Rs.12,41,456/- which was not allowed by the AO by holding that the principle business carried out by the assessee

P V MERCY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, W-1, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 P.V. Mercy .......... Appellant Aiswarya Traders, Nhamangad P.O. Vylathur, Thrissur 680307 [Pan: Acwpv0753D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Guruvayur Appellant By: Ms. Tesin Mathew, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

41,080/-. Against the said Return of Income, the assessment was 2 P.V. Mercy completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Guruvayur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 27.01.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs.1,73,06,020/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance

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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

1 AWHPB7056L G 4,19,988 Form 15H submitted. No 41,999/- BHASKARAN proof submitted claiming exemption from TDS 2 AAATF0888P PROVINCIAL 29,60,017 26A furnished for FY: 2014- 206,932/- & BURSAR 15 shows that Rs.890,694/- only was taken as interest income from SIB. The deductor claimed that the remaining amount of Rs.20,69,323/- was shown

T.J.MATHAI AND COMPANY,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.J. Mathai & Company .......... Appellant Amigo House, Thoundayil Road Cochin 682036 [Pan: Aahft6856C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Corporate Ward 2(1), Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

section 139(1) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice, the appellant filed return of income on 13.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 37,41,790/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide

SUD CHEMIE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 21 days and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Appeals (CIT-A), NFAC to the extent appealed against is against law, equity and justice. 2. The Learned CIT -A grossly erred in partially confirming the disallowance u/s.14A, r.w.r

ELOOR VANITHA KSHEMODHARANA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,UDYOGAMANDAL vs. ITO WARD -1 &TPS, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-Op Society Ltd. ......... Appellant Fact Dormetry Room No. 27, Kochi 683501 [Pan: Aaaae8921H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tds, Aluva .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.K. Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. No Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed By The Appellant Society Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Appellant On 30.03.2023. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148 The Appellant Filed Return Of Income On 06.06.2023 Declaring

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s. 148 the appellant filed return of income on 06.06.2023 declaring 2 Eloor Vanitha Kshemodharana Co-op Society Ltd. total income of Rs. 1250/- after claiming deduction

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

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

GOOD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-1 on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by both the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals