NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed

NEW HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the processing of it’s tax returns, one each for the four quarters of fy 2014-15, u/s.200A of the Act, by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), vide separate orders dated 21.9.2022. The appeals raising the same issue, were heard together, and are accordingly being disposed

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

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive sec.69 addition of Rs.68 lakhs made in the course of assessment herein dated 31.12.2019; learned DR invited our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under ; “7. During

T K THAMPI,KAKKANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri T.K. Thampi The Income Tax Officer-1(5) 10/649, Thekkedathu House Range 1, Non-Corporate Vs. Kusumagiri, Kakkanad C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adapt1840N Appellant Respondent

Section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as un-admitted by holding that there was a delay of one day in filing the appeal by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the present

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

68,81,663/-. Unless the delay in return filing is condoned, the deduction u/s. 80P cannot be availed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above, the claim of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

section 80P of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2016] 384 ITR 490 (Ker). The AO also made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 40,66,82,991/-. The AO also made

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

section 80P as District Co-operative Banks are also Co-operative societies. The deduction u/s 80P would also be available even if the interest received is assessed as income from other sources. The Commissioner(Appeals) has hence erred in not following the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High court. 3. There is a delay of 136 days in filing these

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

section 80P as District Co-operative Banks are also Co-operative societies. The deduction u/s 80P would also be available even if the interest received is assessed as income from other sources. The Commissioner(Appeals) has hence erred in not following the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High court. 3. There is a delay of 136 days in filing these

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

section 80P as District Co-operative Banks are also Co-operative societies. The deduction u/s 80P would also be available even if the interest received is assessed as income from other sources. The Commissioner(Appeals) has hence erred in not following the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High court. 3. There is a delay of 136 days in filing these

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter on merits. I.T.A. No.273/COCH/2024 Raju Joseph Vayalat 4. On perusal of the facts, it is evident that the assessee could not substantiate the total credit of Rs. 2,33,60,354 in his capital account. Out of this, only Rs. 26,00,000 from his brother and Rs. 55.58 lakh from

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

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

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal