M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

M/S.GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

GEM TECH SOLUTIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 48 days and proceed to decide these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which, ground No. (a) to (d) are related to the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section

THE VELLATHOOVAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

48,915/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 06.07.2020 disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not fled within the due date specified under the provisions of section

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

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

48 days. 5. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have noted that the reason for delay in each case has to be considered independently. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the delay was only of few days and it was not a case of inordinate delay. The appellant had explained the reasons for the delay which is a valid, genuine

KODIYIL THAMEEM,PAYYANNUR vs. THE INCME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kodiyil Thameem Abc Sales Corporation, Abc Esquire Payannur, Kannur 670307 [Pan: Afppt3775D] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 4, Kannur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2025

48,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation period. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset I find that the appellant filed appeal

CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

delay of 48 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4.1 In this case, the ld. AO has denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act while processing the return u/s Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 5 of 5 143(1) of the Act dated 29.8.2016. Against this assessee filed

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

MONZEY VARGHESE,PALLIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX COMMISIONER, MATTANCHERY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

48 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay had occurred due to the fact that the email ID provided in Form 35 belonged to the staff of the CA office who was entrusted with filing

THE NALLEPILLY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NOR43,NALLEPILLY vs. ITO, WARD-1 ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nallepilly Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant \5/453 Nallepilly, Chittur, Palakkad 678553 [Pan: Aacat5798F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678001

48,484/- u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the 2 Nallepilly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakkad (hereinafter “the AO”) completed the assessment at a total income of Rs. 43,08,485/- by making an addition of Rs. 43,08,485/- on account of interest

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

SACRED HEART PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

48,88,492/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that he appellant is a charitable trust duly registered under the Trust Act. It is also registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). No regular return of income 2 ITA No. 423/Coch/2025 & SA No. 61/C/2025 Sacred Heart Public School was filed under the provisions of section

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

48,420/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the long term capital gains of Rs. 11,71,08,481/- on transfer of land. 3. The factual background leading to the addition is that the appellant is owner of land admeasuring 150 cents in Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The appellant executed a registered power of attorney vide document No. 375/2011