PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

set aside an exparte decree on the ground that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is found to be not satisfied. 30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

set aside an exparte decree on the ground that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is found to be not satisfied. 30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation

SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty shall

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

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

loss and hardship. It is therefore accordingly prayed. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is humbly prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.” Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 740 & 741/Coch/2024 “A. The impugned order of the first Appellate Authority to the extent objected to hereunder

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

loss and hardship. It is therefore accordingly prayed. For these and other grounds and documents to be submitted at the time of hearing and it is humbly prayed that the Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal.” Page 3 of 6 ITA Nos. 740 & 741/Coch/2024 “A. The impugned order of the first Appellate Authority to the extent objected to hereunder

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

loss to the petitioner. 8. In the above circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay about 358 days in filing the appeal, accept the same on file and render justice. 9. A separate petition praying for the above relief is submitted herewith and the same

THE AROOR CENTRAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals and stay applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

loss to the petitioner. 8. In the above circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may kindly be pleased to condone the delay about 358 days in filing the appeal, accept the same on file and render justice. 9. A separate petition praying for the above relief is submitted herewith and the same

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANAKKARA vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

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

set off against losses of earlier years. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. completed by the assessments were completed by the ACIT, Tirur (hereafter “the AO”) vide orders dated 27.03.2015 & 08.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income

ANAKKARA FOOD PROCESSING AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,EDAPPAL vs. ACIT, TIRUR

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

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

set off against losses of earlier years. Against the said return of income, the assessment was Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. completed by the assessments were completed by the ACIT, Tirur (hereafter “the AO”) vide orders dated 27.03.2015 & 08.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income

SREEPRIYA MOHANAN SAJI,PARAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

loss would be caused to her. 4. We have considered the said submissions made by the assessee and satisfied ourselves that the assessee had valid reasons for not filing the appeal in time and therefore we allow the prayer of condoning the delay and take up the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case

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

EEPEES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

set off of loss and depreciation since the property was acquired and used for commercial purposes and therefore the same is a business activity carried on by the assessee. 3. The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 122 days and explained the reasons for the said delay. The assessee submitted that the mother of the auditor

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set of two Appeals by the Assessee, directed against the dismissal of it’s appeals contesting the processing of it’s returns of income for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2014-15 (dated 16.03.2016) and 2015-16 (dated 27.03.2017) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], as not maintainable vide his separate orders dated

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

set of two Appeals by the Assessee, directed against the dismissal of it’s appeals contesting the processing of it’s returns of income for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2014-15 (dated 16.03.2016) and 2015-16 (dated 27.03.2017) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], as not maintainable vide his separate orders dated

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

STARCARE HOSPITAL KOZHIKODE PVT.LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

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

loss of Rs. 13,45,69,947/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 23.04.2022 at a total income of Rs. 18,66,25,520/-. While doing so, the AO made the following additions: (i) disallowance of Rs. 8,67,88,000/- and (ii) disallowance of share capital

STARCARE HOSPITAL KOZHIKODE PVT.LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

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

loss of Rs. 13,45,69,947/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 23.04.2022 at a total income of Rs. 18,66,25,520/-. While doing so, the AO made the following additions: (i) disallowance of Rs. 8,67,88,000/- and (ii) disallowance of share capital