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

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

MRS. THANKAMANI VARADARAJULU,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed

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

condonation petitionss accompanied by an affidavit in the case of Smt. Thankamani Varadrajulu which reads as follows: “I am ane assessee in the jurisdiction of the assessing officer at Kottayam. I am the wife of late S Varadarajulu, Ex-partner of M/s Parthas Textiles, Kottayam. Following a search in the case of Parthas Textiles, Kottayam/Trivandrum, the files of the petitioner

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Nitta Gelatin India Limited ..….……….Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi Kerala – 682036 [Pan:Aabck1582H] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Kochi ..….……….Respondent

condone the delay in both cases. ITA No. 258/Kochi/2025 – A.Y. 2012–13 3. In the present case the assessee originally filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs.12,19,08,737, and subsequently filed a revised return with a loss of Rs.2,77,97,330. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 10.03.2015, accepting the loss

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor's report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e. at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor's report along with the return

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. We now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee which are as under: “1. It is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the appeal for Asst. Year 2010-11 is infirm and unsustainable

M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings. The appeals raising common issue/s, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order. 2. The appeals filed on 19.06.2020, at a delay of 143 days, are also defective. Form 35, i.e., the memorandum of appeal before the first appellate authority, remains to be furnished despite the said defect being communicated vide defect notice dated

M/S.KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment proceedings. The appeals raising common issue/s, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order. 2. The appeals filed on 19.06.2020, at a delay of 143 days, are also defective. Form 35, i.e., the memorandum of appeal before the first appellate authority, remains to be furnished despite the said defect being communicated vide defect notice dated

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R 689,ANAKALLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. It did not file its return of income under section 139 of the Act but filed the same in response to notice issued under section 148 on 16.05.2019, declaring income after

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment, section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment(s), 271(1)(c), 271AAA, 271B penlty, etc. This is for the precise reason that there was a search carried out at assessee’s business premises who is engaged in LPG distribution business. Both the counsel(s) fairly submit before us that the first substantial issue that invites our apt adjudication is estimation

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment, section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment(s), 271(1)(c), 271AAA, 271B penlty, etc. This is for the precise reason that there was a search carried out at assessee’s business premises who is engaged in LPG distribution business. Both the counsel(s) fairly submit before us that the first substantial issue that invites our apt adjudication is estimation