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

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. 1.1. There is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation

NEDUMON SERVICE COOP BANK,NEDUMON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhnedumon Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Vi/312 Nedumon P.O. Ward -5, Kollam Vs. Pathanamthitta 691556 [Pan: Aaaan2996H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80P deduction. Necessary computation shall follow as per law in very terms. 6. The appeal is filed with a delay of 69. Considering assessee’s condonation

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

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Section 143(3) of the Act for the\n Assessment Year 2016-2017.\n2.\nThe present appeal was delayed by 86 days. In the application\nseeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the delay was\ninadvertently caused on account of the impugned order having been\nreceived in the spam folder. The Assessee only got knowledge of the\nimpugned

SANKAR ALAMELU,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO , NFAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 3 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,99,356 u/s.69 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: It is the claim

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

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,TDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

69,323/- was shown in FY: 2015-16. However, neither the computation nor the 26A for FY: 2015-16 is clear on the fact that this amount has been offered for taxation. 3 AAETS9556K IDFC CASH 62,32,877 26A furnished, Return of 623,288/- FUND income not filed claiming that the deductee's income is exempted. Non-deduction

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. The matter was posted several occasions and on each time the appellant society Peeroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. sought adjournment of hearing of this appeal. Since the appellant

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. The matter was posted several occasions and on each time the appellant society Peeroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. sought adjournment of hearing of this appeal. Since the appellant

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. The matter was posted several occasions and on each time the appellant society Peeroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. sought adjournment of hearing of this appeal. Since the appellant

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

69,364/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. In respect of belated filing of the appeal, the appellant filed an petition seeking condonation of delay along

GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgiju Purapadathil Mathai Acit, Corporate Ward 2(1) 5-B Parambil Thara Cross Road Kochi Ivory Heights, Panampilly Vs. Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69 unexplained income addition without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame 2 Giju Purapadathil Mathai points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereon. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh verification

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit