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

JOYCE JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Puthenveli, The Income Tax Officer – 2, Puthenvelikkara, Aluva. Ernakulam – 683 594. Vs. PAN: BACPJ8168F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 13-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

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

condoning the delay. 3. Inasmuch as the impugned order is an ex parte and an in limine dismissal of the assessee’s appeal, it was clarified by the Bench that it would be disinclined to adjudicate, and prefer to restore the matter for an adjudication on merits to the file of the ld.CIT(A). While hearing was proceeded with

MOHAMMED ALI ABDULLA,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohammed Ali Abdulla .......... Appellant Erivottkuni House, Payyoili Angadi, Thurayur, Kozhikode-673523. Pan: Cdfpm5769J Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2), Kozhikode. Appellant By: Shri C B M Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

House, Payyoili Angadi, Thurayur, Kozhikode-673523. PAN: CDFPM5769J vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2), Kozhikode. Appellant by: Shri C B M Warrier, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

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

house property and denied the other deductions except the 30% towards repair and maintenance as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the license fee received by the assessee is nothing but business income and therefore entitled for the set off of loss and depreciation since the property

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

house property’, ‘income from business, and ‘capital gains’. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 02.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2 Beneesh Kumar 2, 13,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed

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

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

house property”. Accordingly, PCIT issued notice us 263 dated 23.11.2021 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order should not be set aside. After considering the submissions made by the appellant the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law. 4. Being

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2.4 Considering the above submissions, the appeal is not held to be time barred respectfully following the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra). Accordingly the present appeal is admitted to be adjudicated on the issues raised by assessee there. Page 4 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 3. Following additional grounds filed

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the said delay and proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted a paper book enclosing the copies of the five sale deeds and also enclosed the demand drafts taken in the name of the seller Francis D Fernandes and submitted that the loans were given by the 9 persons that

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee had filed the following grounds of appeal: 2 Soniya David Lathika vs. ITO 1. The order of the learned Assessing officer is against law, facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Officer erred in fixing long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay of 47 days and proceed to decide these appeals by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of builder and developer in Ernakulam District

DIVINE KANJIRAMADATHIL IGNATIOUS,KOCHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

House Trivandrum. Wax Wall Lane Chittoor Road, Cochin – 682 018. PAN :AALPI4977M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shivashanker Panicker, Advocaate Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice-President : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals