SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty shall

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

SHAMSUDEEN ABDUL KHADAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,07,500/- during AY 2017-18 in bank account maintained with Kerala Grameen Bank, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Therefore, the AO 2 Shamsudeen Abdul

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 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

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 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

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 148 of the Income- tax Act and rest of the grounds are related to the additions made

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

SEA CASTLE AN AYURVEDIC AND LEISURE HOTEL(HILL & SEA VIEW AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), RANGE I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 43B of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- being the excess remuneration paid to partners u/s. 40(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

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

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R 689,ANAKALLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

50,000 imposed under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the instant appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation

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

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,92,230/- as unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

50,92,230/- as unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed

THE MUTHALAMADA EAST KSHEERA VYAVASAYA COOP SOCIETY LTD NOP4D,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-2, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Bench: the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that

Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that Assessment Order was passed on 20/02/2024. However, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was instituted on 27/05/2025. In the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in Form