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

DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

73 taxmann.com 252. It is submitted that the amendment to section 200A(1) is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Ld.AO while processing the TDS statements/returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 1-6-2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E. Hence, the intimation issued by the Ld.AO under section

P V MERCY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, W-1, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 P.V. Mercy .......... Appellant Aiswarya Traders, Nhamangad P.O. Vylathur, Thrissur 680307 [Pan: Acwpv0753D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Guruvayur Appellant By: Ms. Tesin Mathew, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

73,06,020/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of expenditure incurred in cash u/s. 40A(3) of the Act of Rs. 1,55,12,373/- and also made addition of sundry creditors of Rs. 11,52,558/- for alleged failure of the appellant to submit confirmation letters and to reconcile the difference in balance standing to the credit

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

Section 194IA The assessee had not responded to the notice u/s. 148B of the Act, therefore, based on the information available on record, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs. 73,15,000/- While doing so the AO made addition on account of time deposit

SRI.V.I. GEORGE KUTTY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

73,700/-. For the assessment year 2004-05 also interest is levied aggregating to Rs.4,83,143/- under 'Sections 234A and 234B. These assessment orders have acquired finality since no appeal has been filed. 4. The appeals filed by the assessee are belated. The petition for Condonation of delay

SRI.V.I. GEORGE KUTTY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

73,700/-. For the assessment year 2004-05 also interest is levied aggregating to Rs.4,83,143/- under 'Sections 234A and 234B. These assessment orders have acquired finality since no appeal has been filed. 4. The appeals filed by the assessee are belated. The petition for Condonation of delay

VISWANATHA SHENOY,ERNAKULAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 194C of Page 2 of 4 the Act and therefore the AO had issued a notice proposing to disallow the expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that he has obtained the declaration in form 15-I as per Rule 29D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and by mistakenly the said forms were

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

73 & 74/Coch/2022) (Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16) Kathikode Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer Koolimuttam P.O. Ward - 2(1), Thrissur vs. Thrissur 680961 [PAN: AACTK5779L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

73 & 74/Coch/2022) (Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16) Kathikode Charitable Trust Income Tax Officer Koolimuttam P.O. Ward - 2(1), Thrissur vs. Thrissur 680961 [PAN: AACTK5779L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jojo, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that for the (A.Y. 2012–13), notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee and assessment was completed under Section 144 on 30.12.2018, due to non-submission of supporting documents. The assessee filed a revision petition under Section

FAIZAL LATHEEF,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

73,510. The same was selected for 2 ITA No.141/Coch/2025. Faizal Latheef. scrutiny and thereafter the assessment u/s.143(3) has been framed. The said assessment order was reviewed by the CIT in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Act and finally set aside by the CIT and thereafter the AO passed the fresh assessment order, which is impugned

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

73,,20,296 is found to be 0.95825.” 7. Aggrieved by the above findings of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After considering the details filed by the assessee the issue has been dealt with by him in paras 10 to 16 of his order and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, Revenue

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 135 days. The condonation petition accompanying the appeal, which is supported by a sworn affidavit dated 29.12.2022 by Shri Simon John, the Director and Principal Officer of the assessee- company, explains