SRI BHUVANENDRA EDUCATION TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sri Bhuvanendra Education Trust Cit (Exemption) 2Nd/686, Gajanana Aayakar Bhaval Opp. Head Post Office Vs. Old Rly Station Road Hosdurg, Kanhangad 671315 Ernakulam 682018 [Pan: Aakts8046E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No. 8/2022 of CBDT dated 31-3-2022 and latest Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24-5-2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay

GAJANANA CHARITABLE TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Gajanana Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption) 2Nd/686, Gajanana Aayakar Bhaval Opp. Head Post Office Vs. Old Rly Station Road Hosdurg, Kanhangad 671315 Ernakulam 682018 [Pan: Aabtg6555F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

5) of section 80 G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No. 8/2022 of CBDT dated 31-3-2022 and latest Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24-5-2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay

KATTAPPANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

80 P for the assessment years 2018 -19 to 2022-23. The CIT(A) directed the assessee to approach the proper authority for the condoning the delay in filing the return as per the circular issued by the CBDT. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the time

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

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

5 and also provisions of Section 80 of the Act. 5.2 The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of income was filed in time and that the only grievance of the Revenue on which the claim of carry forward of loss was denied to the assesse is that the revised return of income was not filed based

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD -1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

M/S THE KASARAGOD TODDY TAPPERS AND SHOP WORKERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KASARGOD vs. ITO WARD 1, KASARGOD

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkey

condoning the delay of 1855 days. We decide accordingly. ITA Nos. 908 & 909/Coch/2022 (AYs: 2010-11& 11-12) Kasaragod Toddy Tappers and Shop Workers Co-operative Society Ltd.v. ITOO 5. The ld. CIT(A), however, without prejudice, and in the alternative, has discussed the appeal on merits as well.It is, in view of our decisionconfirming his order/s holding the appeal/sbefore

THE MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASARGOD vs. THE ITO, KASARGOD

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

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Muliar Service Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward - 1 & Tps Vs. Kanathur P.O., Kasargod 671542 Kasargod

5. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have noted that the reason for delay in each case has to be considered independently. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the delay was only of few days and it was not a case of inordinate delay. The appellant had explained the reasons for the delay which is a valid, genuine and sufficient

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

condone the delay\nin filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the\nfollowing grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee:\n\"1.\n2.\n3.\nThis is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment\norder passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and\ndisallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery\nService Co-operative Bank

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

THE PAVARATTY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 3918,PAVARATTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed affidavits seeking

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. For the AY 2012-13 the assesse filed its return of income on 9.11.2019. As per the return the taxable income was Nil after claiming deduction

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015-16. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant made cash deposits in the account maintained with Union Bank of India aggregating to Rs. 4,16,87,460/- during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter