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

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

85,063 and interest income of Rs.3,72,522. 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

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

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

85,060/-. The case of\nthe Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer\ncompleted the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide\nAssessment Order, dated 10/12/2018. The Assessing Officer\nrestricted the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F\nof the Act to INR.2,03,79,316/- as against INR.2,24,25,368/-\nclaimed by the Assessee

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

85,837/-. Thus, returning net capital gains of Rs. 42,473/-. The AO had reworked out the capital gains at Rs. 57,46,710/- as against the long term capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support

BLOSSOM INNERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(1), 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 : 2023-24

condone the said delay in filing the return of income but only the CBDT has power u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore denied the claim made by the assessee. 10. In this issue, we have come across several orders of the Hon’ble Tribunals in which it was categorically held that the authorities should have considered

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

Section 139(9) further grants power to AO to condone the delay and treat the return as valid , even if the said defect is not rectified within the period stipulated by AO in its notice u/s 139(9) of the 1961 Act, but the said defect stood rectified before assessment is completed. It is admitted position that

VADAKKE MADHAM BRAHMASWOM,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shrimanomohan Das, Jm

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’ hereinafter) dated 10.12.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2017-2018 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NAFC) vide it’s order dated 30.05.2022. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the corpus donation received by the assessee-trust qualifies to be so, so that

SHAFI MUSALIAR SAINALABDEEN MUSALIAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

delay is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, late Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar (“the deceased”), was engaged in the business of trading in cashew and cashew products in the name of Safi Cashew Industries, Kollam, Kerala, including local purchases/sales, inter-State transactions, import and export

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

85,940/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment by CASS under limited category for verifying whether the cash in hand· shown in Return of income is correct. Subsequently the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assessee. The assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 12/12/2017 by limiting the cash in 2 M/s. Supriya Enterprises hand

M/S. PUNALUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhalong With Sa.No.178/Coch/2023 – Assessment Year 2018-2019 Punalur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Office Building V. The Income Tax Officer Punalur Post Ward 2 Kollam – 691 305. Kollam. Pan : Aagas6534C. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant/Applicant By : Sri.Santhosh P.Abraham Respondent By : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11. 2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal Ita.No. 785/Coch/2023 (Along With Its Stay Application Sa.No.178/Coch/2023 Therein) For Assessment 2018-2019 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053606989(1) Dated 08.06.2023 In Proceedings U/S.143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2

85,453/- u/s.143(1)(a)(v) “processing” in the light of the fact that the assessee’s corresponding return had not been filed within the “due” date u/s. 139(1) of the Act attracting s. 80AC (as amended from 01.04.2018 onwards). 3. The assessee’s stand all along has been that hon'ble jurisdictional high court in Chirakkal Service

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

THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO,WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act at a total income of Rs.13,25,07,906/-. While doing so, the AO made addition by disallowing the provision for reserves under various heads of Rs.4,63,25,533/- and ‘reserve for deficit stock’ of Rs. 12,603/- and provision for gratuity of Rs. 6,32,08,065/- and also disallowed

THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO,WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

section 143(3)r.w.s. 263 of the Act at a total income of Rs.13,25,07,906/-. While doing so, the AO made addition by disallowing the provision for reserves under various heads of Rs.4,63,25,533/- and ‘reserve for deficit stock’ of Rs. 12,603/- and provision for gratuity of Rs. 6,32,08,065/- and also disallowed