M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT(, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

86,78,056/- which works at to Rs.5035/-/Sq. Mtr. • In the case of Tile flooring, the DVO has adopted nearly Rs.100/- as the value per sq. ft. where as the cost of the vitrified tiles used is only Rs.40/- sq.ft plus Rs.8/- sq. ft as laying charges and Rs.14/- per sq. ft towards cement, sand etc. (total Rs.62

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

Section 143(3) of the Act for the\n Assessment Year 2016-2017.\n2.\nThe present appeal was delayed by 86 days. In the application\nseeking condonation

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

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-1(10, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) was pleased to condone a delay of 2984 days when the Assessee showed bonafide reasons for not preferring the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeals on the ground of limitation, without examining the submissions of the assessee on merits. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied

MR. ANIL,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 614 &

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) was pleased to condone a delay of 2984 days when the Assessee showed bonafide reasons for not preferring the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeals on the ground of limitation, without examining the submissions of the assessee on merits. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied

KOZHIKODE TOWN CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 79/Coch/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 484/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

condoning the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 4. Briefly stated the assessee is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Society Act engaged in providing credit facilities to its Members. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 19.10.2016 for the year under consideration declaring gross total income

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

delay could be condoned after recording the reasons. 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has applied the profit of the assessee-Trust for charitable activities which is sufficient for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following Supreme Court judgments: 1) American Hotel and Lodging Association vs. CBDT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

delay could be condoned after recording the reasons. 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has applied the profit of the assessee-Trust for charitable activities which is sufficient for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following Supreme Court judgments: 1) American Hotel and Lodging Association vs. CBDT

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

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

delay could be condoned after recording the reasons. 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has applied the profit of the assessee-Trust for charitable activities which is sufficient for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. For this proposition, he relied on the following Supreme Court judgments: 1) American Hotel and Lodging Association vs. CBDT