THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 7. The facts of the case are that the while completing the assessment for AY 2008-09, reference was made to Dist. Valuation Officer, for ascertaining the cost of construction of one of the properties of the assessee, namely Capital City. The report was received after the completion of assessment

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74,[or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1)[***], a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and both

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condone the delay of 217 days in filing the appeals for all the assessment years. 6. In the result, all the other appeals of the assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. 7. Now coming to the Revenue appeal in ITA No.60/Coch/2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in suggesting that extrapolation of the findings

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing appeal stands condoned by the order passed by Third Member. We now proceed to dwell into the merits of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appellant is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and also enjoying registration under FCRA. The appellant trust

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

72,522. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,01,40,000. The AO completed the assessment accepting the income returned by the assessee. Later, a rectification order

ALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd . .......... Appellant Santhipuram P.O., Kodungallur, Thrissur 680668 [Pan: Aadaa5833H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jojo, C.A., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 17.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting Deposits From Members. The Return Of 2 Ala Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 28.12.2018 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National E- Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 72,95,927/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income 72,95,927/- Derived From District Co-Operative Bank.

72,95,927/- derived from District Co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the return of income was filed belatedly placing reliance on the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

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.

delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. We now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee which are as under: “1. It is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11 is infirm and unsustainable