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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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