THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the appellant cooperative society for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO as well as learned CIT(A) denied

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

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

4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the reasons advanced by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. We are satisfied with the reasons explained by the assessee for filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now coming

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

45 days in filing the physical documents. Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

KULASEKHARAPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.995,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ITA No. 781/Coch/2024 is dismissed and ITA Nos

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

4) or in the notices issued under Section 142(1) and Section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for deduction

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, THIRUVALLA , THIRUVALLA

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

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

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

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

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

45,33,580 e) JCB & Truck expenses Rs. 35,52,507 f) Loading & Unloading Rs. 6,87,935 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset we find

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

45,33,580 e) JCB & Truck expenses Rs. 35,52,507 f) Loading & Unloading Rs. 6,87,935 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset we find

USHASHREE KUNJULEKSHMI AMMA RAGHAVAN PILLAI,KOLLAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law and facts and circumstances of the case. C. The ld. CIT(A) had failed to note that the delay in getting the accounts audited and filing the audit report has occurred due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control and there was no deliberate or willful intention

THE ADHYAPAKA C-O-PBANK LTD , PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ITO, WARD 4, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am The Adhyapaka Cooperative D.C.I.T., Cpc Bank Ltd, No. A 300 Bangalore Vs. Puthussery P.O., Kallooppara Pathanamthtta 689602 Pan – Aaaat6387Q Appellant Respondent

delay in filing of the return has been condoned and the return has been treated as a return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Further the issue in the appeal is highly debatable issue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 414 ITR 67 had held