THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144B(XI) is required for completion of the assessment. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overlooked the fact that such a procedure is mandatory as has been held by the Hon. High Court of Delhi, in the case of Anju Jalaj Batra Vs. National E-Assessment and many other cases. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144B(XI) is required for completion of the assessment. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overlooked the fact that such a procedure is mandatory as has been held by the Hon. High Court of Delhi, in the case of Anju Jalaj Batra Vs. National E-Assessment and many other cases. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

KEEZHUPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act for the Assessment Year Assessment Year 2020-2021 & 2022-23 2022-2023 vide Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2024. According to the Assessing Officer there were the differential increase of INR.35,05,14,136/- in the share capital of the Assessee-Company and the Assessee had failed to explain the same during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing

KEEZHUPARAMBA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act for the Assessment Year Assessment Year 2020-2021 & 2022-23 2022-2023 vide Assessment Order, dated 22/03/2024. According to the Assessing Officer there were the differential increase of INR.35,05,14,136/- in the share capital of the Assessee-Company and the Assessee had failed to explain the same during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing

KSEB EMPLOYEES CO OP SOCIETY,KALLARKUTTY vs. ITO,WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Kseb Employees Co-Op. Society Kallarkutty Kallarkutty Po Assessment Unit Vs. Idukki 685 562 Nfac Kerala Delhi Pan No : Aacak8820H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mathew Joseph, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 30.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064480180(1) For The Ay 2020- 21 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short “The Act”).

68 of the Act and brought to tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act and assessed u/s. 143(3) / 144B

BINDHUMOL CHANDRAN PILLAI CHANDRALAYAM,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the 2 Bindhumol Chandran Pillai appellant. However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax based on the information that the appellant made huge cash deposit to the tune

SHAMSUDEEN ABDUL KHADAR,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shamsudeen Abdul Khadar .......... Appellant Nusaifa Manzil, Chithara, Madathara Kottarakkara, Kollam 691541 [Pan: Arjpa0218Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Appellant Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2017-18. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,07,500/- During Ay 2017-18 In Bank Account Maintained With Kerala Grameen Bank, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, The Ao

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2017-18. Based on the information that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 12,07,500/- during AY 2017-18 in bank account maintained with Kerala Grameen Bank, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Therefore, the AO 2 Shamsudeen

ARUN BOSE,IDUKKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the as stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Arun Bose .......... Appellant Pulparambil House, Rajakumari Aruvilanchal P.O., Idukki 685619 [Pan: Bdppp4937G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Respondent Mahima Towers, Temple Road, Thodupuzha Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

68,510/-. Against the said 2 Arun Bose return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-1 & TPS, Thodupuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 13.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 3,59,69,688/-. Subsequently, on examination of the assessment

PALMSHORE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2017-18. However, the AO, on 2 Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. receipt of information that the appellant had a turnover from services reported in Service Tax Return of Rs. 34,17,888/-, interest income and rental income on which TDS was deducted, formed

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

144B of the Act on 26.03.2022, the assesseepreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after calling for the remand report from the LJAO.Regarding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the burden of proof had been discharged

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

144B of the Act on 26.03.2022, the assesseepreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after calling for the remand report from the LJAO.Regarding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the burden of proof had been discharged

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 58,00,000/- formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice the appellant submitted

WATERWORLD TOURISM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 6,67,50,240/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 6,67,50,241/- being the amount of unsecured loss received from one Smt. Mary Chandy for the failure of the appellant company to prove creditworthiness of said

THIRUVALLA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVALLA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, we dismiss these I

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2021-22 Thiruvalla Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant No. 1307, Kavumbhagam, Thiruvalla P.O, Kerala – 689102. Pan:Aacat9668A

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at a total income of Rs. 2,12,60,018/-. While doing so, the Assessing Authority denied the deduction U/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) in respect of the interest income received from Kerala State Cooperative Bank, District Cooperative Bank, Bank

THE CENTRAL FINANCIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CO OPERATIVE INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

In the result, we dismiss these I

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at a total income of Rs. 1,69,14,524/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction U/s. 80P(20(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest income earned on deposits, investments made out of the surplus funds with Scheduled Banks

TRIKKALANGODE VANITHA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, TIRUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thrikkalangode Vanitha Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Thrikkalangode, Malapuram 676123 [Pan: Aafat1812K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1., Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Arjun Nedungadi, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. No Regular

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2019-20. Based on the information that the appellant co-operative society made cash deposit aggregating to Rs. 2,14,71,001 in the bank account maintained with the Manjari Co-operative Urban bank Ltd. formed an opinion that income escaped assessment

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.08.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee is a wholly owned public sector undertaking (PSU) of the Government of Kerala (GoK), operating in the automobile sector, manufacturing, marketing and servicing various models of three-wheelers. It filed it’s return of income for the relevant