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

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

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

5), the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1.4.2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under Section

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

KAJAMOIDEEN MOHAMMED HASHIM,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kajamoideen Mohammed Hashim .......... Appellant 8/351 Kadeeja Manzil, Kadamkode Palakkad 678551 [Pan: Auqpm1241F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Palakkad .......... Respondent

45,110/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 53,30,000/- treating the cash deposit as unexplained money of the assessee, rejecting the explanation that the cash deposits were made out of the gift received from his brother, Shri Thanseer Kaja. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order

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

5) shows that no deduction under “C- deduction in respect of certain comes is allowable if the assessee fails to make a claim in its return of income for the deduction”. In the present case, admittedly the assessee has made the claim under Section 80P of the Act. Further, a perusal of provisions of Section 80AC shows that no deduction

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 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

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

VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHERUPULASSERY vs. ITO, WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45,722/- Gold Loan : Rs. 60,41,14,076/- Total : Rs. 75,16,59,798/- Total Loans & Advances during the year : Rs. 83,14,70,156/- On further verification of the loan documents of the Bank, it is seen that the major portion of the agricultural loans are agricultural mortgage loan advanced by the mortgage of gold ornaments and there

VALLAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHERUPULASSERY vs. ITO,WARD-3, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

45,722/- Gold Loan : Rs. 60,41,14,076/- Total : Rs. 75,16,59,798/- Total Loans & Advances during the year : Rs. 83,14,70,156/- On further verification of the loan documents of the Bank, it is seen that the major portion of the agricultural loans are agricultural mortgage loan advanced by the mortgage of gold ornaments and there