SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

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

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

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

SABIR ALI,KANNUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

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

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

57,600 2013-2014 Q4 31,240 2013-2014 Q3 34,640 2014-2015 Q1 21,250 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed u/s 200A of the I.T.Act, for various quarters levying fees u/s 234E of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. All the appeals filed before the first appellate authority were 3 ITA Nos.200

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

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL BENEFIT SCHEME, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

condonation petition explaining the delay(s) and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 2 ITA No.401/Coch/2023. State Bank of Travancore EMBS. 4. Brief facts of the case

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

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before

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

57,45,110/-. 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

AARPEE'S CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOZHIKODE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

57 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned by considering the assessee’s condonation petition, accompanied by an Affidavit of Sri. Mohammed Ali, Secretary of the Trust, explaining the delay(s) as well as going by the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settling the issue long

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

57 meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 80P and therefore, would not be eligible to the benefit of deduction as provided therein. 15.4. Having regard to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80P, it is necessary to consider Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949 which states that the said Act shall apply to co-operative societies

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

57 meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 80P and therefore, would not be eligible to the benefit of deduction as provided therein. 15.4. Having regard to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80P, it is necessary to consider Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949 which states that the said Act shall apply to co-operative societies

KOYILANDY TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 148A(b), making an addition of Rs. 57,76,285. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, due to non-compliance and absence during hearings, the appeal was decided ex parte, without affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. 4. The assessee has challenged the CIT(A)’s order before

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

57,680/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1),Trivandrum (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) vide order dated 26/12/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at a total income of Rs. 70,75,70,904/-. While doing

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

57 meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 80P and therefore, would not be eligible to the benefit of deduction as provided therein. 12 ITA.No.913 & SA.No.202/COCH./2023 15.4. Having regard to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80P, it is necessary to consider Chapter V of the BR Act, 1949 which states that the said

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

condoning the delay, admit the appeal for being decided on merits. 3. It was, at the outset, submitted by Shri Joseph, the learned counsel for the assessee, that only the grounds of appeal in relation to levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B of the Act are being pressed. And toward which he would take us through the appeal memo