SRI.PURUSOTHAMAN K.K.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, , THIRUVALLA

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 79 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A: The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. B: The averments made before the first appellate

ST MARYS JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH,TRIPUNITHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION WARD, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the ordinate delay of 79 days happened and proceeded to decide the matter. 7. After perusing the order of the ld.CIT(A) we observe that except one notice of hearing or other the notices were pertained to Covid period. Further, we have also observed that the notices of hearing were sent to wrong email id and that

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

M/S UNITED TROPICAN VENEERS PVT. LTD.,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT CIR-1, THIRUVALLA , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271 (1) (c) was passed on 24.03.2010 and despite extreme difficulties the Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing

K.L ABDUL SATHAR,SOUTH BAZAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2009-10 K.L. Abdul Sathar South Bazar Kannur 670002 Vs. Dcit Kannur Pan No : Aaffk4769B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R. Krishnan, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 29.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060194335(1) For The Ay 2009-10 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of timber, tiles and other allied goods. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee firm filed its return of income on 24.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,79,760/-. The return

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], New Delhi in DIN and Order No. DIN ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1074993866(1) dated 25.03.2025 against assessment

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

condone the delay of 86 days in filing\nthe present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by\nthe Assessee in the present appeal.\n3.\nThe Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :\n\"1.\nThe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),\nNFAC u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and\ncontrary

M/S MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO , THIRUVALLA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee was attributable to the change of auditor and therefore we are of the view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the specified time. Accordingly, we condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. 3. The only issue

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating it as co-operative Thurayur SCB Limited. bank and also for the reason that the corresponding loans to the extent of 25% only had been advanced to agricultural sector, as the case may be. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing objection to the assessee’s section

M/S THURAYUR SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

79,728/- and Rs.63,67,085/-, inter alia, treating it as co-operative Thurayur SCB Limited. bank and also for the reason that the corresponding loans to the extent of 25% only had been advanced to agricultural sector, as the case may be. 3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing objection to the assessee’s section

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

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CITA], vide it’s order dated 16.3.2022. 2. The appeal, filed on 17.10.2022, is time barred by 79 days, which is explained per the accompanying affidavit dated 12.10.2022 by the Principal