M/S CHIRAYINKEEZHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHIRAYINKEEZHU vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. So far as the assessee’s claim qua its impugned income derived from a co-operative bank is concerned, we indeed have the benefit of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s detailed judgement in Pr. CIT vs. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) having rejected

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. So far as the assessee’s claim qua its impugned income derived from a co-operative bank is concerned, we indeed have the benefit of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s detailed judgement in Pr. CIT vs. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) having rejected

M/S KOTTAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 2, KANNUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. 6. So far as the assessee’s claim qua its impugned income derived from a co-operative bank is concerned, we indeed have the benefit of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s detailed judgement in Pr. CIT vs. Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2022] 442 ITR 141 (Ker) having rejected

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

56 of the BR Act, 1949. Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside. Consequently, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

56 of the BR Act, 1949. Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside. Consequently, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section

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

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

M/S BEN RUBBERS,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -1 , ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Ben Rubbers Vs The Income Tax Officer Cheenikuzhi Ward - 1 North Mazhuvannur R.S. Road, Aluva 683101 Ernakulam Dist. 686689 Pan – Aagfb6859G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pratheesh Paul M., Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-10. 2. There Is A Delay Of 9 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition For Condonation We Find That The Delay Cannot Be Attributed To Any Latches On The Part Of The Assessee & There Is Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal On Merits.

condone the delay and proceed to dispose off this appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case as follows: - 2 M/s. Ben Rubbers The assessee is a firm. For AY 2009-10 return of income was filed on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 2,56,080/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section

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

condone the delay\nin filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the\nfollowing grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee:\n\"1.\n2.\n3.\nThis is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment\norder passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and\ndisallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery\nService Co-operative Bank

INDITRADE BUSINESS CONSULTANTS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 56 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

condone the delay and admit the\nappeal for adjudication.\n6. At the outset, I find that the NFAC issued notices through\nITBA portal, with remained uncomplied with. In my considered\nopinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as\nspecified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax\nAct

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 7. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), I find that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adverting to the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts filed before him. In the grounds of appeal it is pleaded that provisions

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2018-19, date of order 20/08/2025& 21/08/2025 related to the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act, date of order 06/04/2021 and order passed U/s 270A

KERALA BEEDI AND CIGAR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,KANNUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KANNUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2018-19, date of order 20/08/2025& 21/08/2025 related to the order of the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A)&143(3B) of the Act, date of order 06/04/2021 and order passed U/s 270A