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

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Incorrect addition made under section 69C

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by make an addition of Rs 76,74,400 to the total income as the alleged unexplained investment in the residential building. Hence this appeal” 3. The assessee also filed a condonation application to condone the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal and enclosed an affidavit in support

CHERUVARAKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. I.T.O, WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section(s) 68 & 69C addition(s) thereby involving varying sum(s), without dealing 2 ITA No. 579 & SA No. 78/Coch/2024 Cheruvarakonam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. with the relevant factual matrix as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon. We further note that the Assessing Officer