ISWAR JYOTHI CHARITABLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTIONS), TRIVANDRUM

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

condone the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The assessees have raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The learned Commissioner could not appreciate the genuineness of the object and activities of the trust for the reasons: -that out of the 26 purely educational and charitable objects

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

section 2(47) of the Act and, therefore, the question of taxability of capital gain does not arise. It is further submitted that the joint development agreement entered into by the appellant with the developer was not registered. Only the power of attorney was registered. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

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 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

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

KUNCHARAVILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PARAVUR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

47 days and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits. 3. The solitary issue that is raised in all the appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer’s orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, wherein he had levied late fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act for various quarters. 4. The brief facts

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the following grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee: - *"1. This is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and disallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery Service Co-operative Bank Limited

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

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

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

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

47,613/- on account of fire is remitted back to the file o the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall consider the issue on merit and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 3.2 The assessee was granted

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

delay of 496 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, in so far as on the points mentioned below are con concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and circumstances