THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

42,830/- 2013-14 Q4 26Q 22,550/- 2014-15 Q4 26Q 220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

42,830/- 2013-14 Q4 26Q 22,550/- 2014-15 Q4 26Q 220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

42,830/- 2013-14 Q4 26Q 22,550/- 2014-15 Q4 26Q 220/- 2015-16 Q1 24Q 4,800/- Total 1,89,110/- 5. The assessee was served upon the recovery notice dated 10.09.2018. On receipt of the recovery notice the assessee filed appeals before the first appellate authority. Since the appeals were filed belatedly, applications for condonation of delay

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

42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, could not file original return

SRI.JOHNY SEBASTIAN, PARTNER VENAD STRUCTURALS,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-2, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: The Tribunal. I Have Perused The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit For The Delayed Filing Of This Appeal. I Am Of The View That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Not On Account Of Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & I Am Satisfied That There Is Sufficient Cause For Condoning The 2 Sri.Johny Sebastian. Delay. Hence, The Delay Of 71 Days In Filing This Appeal Is Condoned & I Proceed To Dispose Of The Same On Merits.

delay of 71 days in filing this appeal is condoned and I proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.14,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

42,473/-. The AO had reworked out the capital gains at Rs. 57,46,710/- as against the long term capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal

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

42(Ker), ITO v. M.C.T Trust,(1976)102 ITR 138(Mad),where it has been observed that the words "In the prescribed manner" in Sec.11(2) do not confer power on the rule making authority to prescribe a time limit in Rule 17. C. Furthermore, the amendment to Sec.11(2) Income Tax Act introduced through the Finance Act, 2015 which

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

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal. - 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : - *"1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and contrary

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