SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal

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

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

BAIJU LEKSHMANAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 Baiju Lekshmanan 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits totaling Rs.10587899/- in his bank account maintained with South Indian Bank during the relevant financial

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act would only enhance the business profit of the appellant, such business profits qualifies for deduction Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. u/s. 80P in terms of CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act would only enhance the business profit of the appellant, such business profits qualifies for deduction Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. u/s. 80P in terms of CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. ITA No. 604/Coch/2024 - Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of LPG cylinders and allied products. For A.Y. 2017–18, assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 41,87,750. The case of the assessee was selected

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

THRISSUR DISTRICT NRI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

69A of the Act and added to the assessee's total income. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee went in appeal where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to defects in the memo of appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above assessee is in appeal before us on multiple grounds. However, during the course

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

delay, in the absence of any\nevidence contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the\nappellant society is prevented by sufficient reasonable cause in filing\nthe appeal within the prescribed limit. Accordingly, we condone the\ndelay and admit the appeal for adjudication.\n8.\nThe learned counsel for the assessee contended that the\naddition made u/s. 69A

CALICUT CHAMBER OF COMMERECE AND INDUSTRY,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

delay of 808 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No.666/COCH/2024 Calicut Chamber of Commerce And Industry 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-profit entity established to promote the interests of traders, manufacturers and professionals in the Calicut region. The Chamber also facilitates representation and certification for its members

MUBAISE PARAYIL,IRITTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, KANNUR, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

delay of 70 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee did not file its return of income for the A.Y 2018-19.The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated I.T.A. No.383/COCH/2025 Mubaise Parayil reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section

SMT. SOBHANAKUMARI,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsobhanakumari The Income Tax Officer Tc-20-2750, Vijaya Nivas Ward - 1(3), Trivandrum 20, Karamana Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695002 [Pan: Cogps2425P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69A addition of Rs.1,26,99,999/- without dealing with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame 2 Sobhanakumari 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

SHRI. JAMES KOCHAPPU KOLENCHERY,CANADA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjames Kochapu Kolenchery Asst. Cit, International 563, Lombarde Ave Oshawa Taxation, Vs. Ontario, Canada Lij8Hs 999999 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Ekjpk3818P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Bangalore [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Appeal Against Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Delayed By 27 Days. As Explained In The Condonation Petition, Submitted Along With, In The Form Of An Affidavit By Shri Tony V.J., The Assessee’S, A Resident Of Canada, Constituted Attorney, The Impugned Order Was Received By The Assessee In Canada Only On 17.6.2022, Whereupon The Power Of Attorney Was Executed & The Papers Sent To India, Entailing Time & Which Led To The Delay In Preparation Of Appeal Papers & Filing Them. The Same Is Found Reasonable & Fairly Not Objected To By Smt. Devi, The Learned Sr. D.R. Hearing In The Matter Was Accordingly Proceeded With.

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that the appeal is delayed by 27 days. As explained in the condonation petition, submitted along with, in the form of an affidavit by Shri Tony V.J., the assessee’s, a resident of Canada, constituted