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

UTHUMAN SAHIB SHAJI,PATHANAPURAM vs. DCIT , CIRCLE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 144C of the Income tax Act to the present case. 5. The assessment order dated 19-07-2022 is barred by time 6. The assessment order dated 19-07-2022 is bad in law as the same has been passed without considering the Valuation Report and other evidences filed by the appellant. 7. The rejection of the valuation report

TRAVANCORE COCOTUFT P. LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1,, ALAPPUZHA

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

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

condone the delay of 03 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the exclusion of Rs.10,77,995/- from the export turnover, on the ground that the appellant had not received the sale proceeds within

SB COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO K356,SB COLLEGE CAMPUS,CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 THIRUVALLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, THIRUVALLA RANGE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sb College Staff Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Sb College Campus, Chngancherry Kottayam 686101 [Pan: Aalas6719C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

77,52,025/- qualifies for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act and the balance amount of Rs. 14,71,312/- is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we find that the appeal

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section

THE ITO, WD-2(4), TRIVANDRUM vs. VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

77 days in filing appeal in ITA No.404/Coch/2019. The Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay. We have perused the reasons stated for filing the appeal belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and no latches can be attributed to the Revenue. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose

THE ITO, WD-2(3), RANGE-2, , TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

77 days in filing appeal in ITA No.404/Coch/2019. The Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay. We have perused the reasons stated for filing the appeal belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and no latches can be attributed to the Revenue. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose

THE ITO,WD-2(4), TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.MYLACHEL SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

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

77 days in filing appeal in ITA No.404/Coch/2019. The Revenue has filed petition for condonation of delay. We have perused the reasons stated for filing the appeal belatedly. We find that there is sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and no latches can be attributed to the Revenue. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose

M/S.VIJAYA HOSPITALITY AND RESORTS LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADCIT(TDS), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the Assessing Officer’s order, wherein penalty 2 ITA No.96/Coch/2015. M/s.Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Limited. has been imposed u/s 271C of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.9

MARINE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.37,690 and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO determined the income at Rs.6,06,500 by making addition under the head underreporting of closing stock

SRI.C.SHAJI,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), TRIVNDRUM

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. First issue for our consideration is as under:- “The purchase of timber for the year for a total value consideration of Rs.11,38,66,879/- is genuine and 2 Sri.C.Shaji. supported by valid documents. The disallowance of Rs.73,34,227/- and estimation of the said amount

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

condoned delay and dismissed the SLP." 14.1 Further, the question whether dismissal of SLP amounts to laying down law in respect of the issue disputed under SLP, has been considered by the ITAT in the case of Moradabad Development Authority, 89 taxmann.com 263 and it was held as under: 7 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. "4 ... …. Further, it is a settled

THE JTCIT(OSD), CALICUT vs. M/S. CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by Revenue as well as the Cross Objection

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

condone the delay of 17 days and admit the cross objection. The cross objection filed by the assessee is only supportive of the CIT(A) order. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1) The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,48,402/- made on account of unexplained net worth of the assessee

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

77,289/- and on generation of steam power amounting to Rs.2,06,20,739/-. 9 I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 4.3 Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

77,949 while computing capital gains. Since no supporting evidence for the cost of improvement was produced, the AO rejected the claim and computed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266.The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28.12.2016, determining total income at Rs. 2,54,33,349. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

delay of 496 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, in so far as on the points mentioned below are con concerned, is opposed to law on the facts and circumstances