196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

…roving the intention at the time of purchase of land is only to hold the subject lands as investment and adduced necessary evidence on record in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kalpetta Estates Ktd, v, CUT [1990] 185 ITR 318. Once the assessee had discharged burden of proving the intention to hold the lands as investment, then the onus to prove otherwise shifts to the Revenue. In the present case, we do not see that the Revenue had rebutted this evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lands were acquired only for the purpose of resale for a profit constitutin…

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

…i Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is largely a question of fact which should be determined by the cumulative effect of fall facts and circumstances in a 13 | P a g e ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose given case. T…

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

…i Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 43 (SC); Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim vs. CIT [1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC); G.M. Omer Khan vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 269 (SC); CWT vs. Officer-in-Charge (CW), Paigah [1976] 105 ITR 133 (SC); Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker), quoting, for authority, from the last: ‘Whether a piece of land is agricultural in character or a capital asset is largely a question of fact which should be determined by the cumulative effect of fall facts and circumstances in a given case. The onus is on the assessee to show that the character of the lands changed after the acquisition…

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

…it clarified that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter, being essentially a question/s of fact, which has to be viewed in a realistic manner, i.e., as the parties purchasing and selling understoodit as. (D)Kalpetta Estates Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 185 ITR 318 (Ker): The assessee’s claim of the forest land purchased by it had since changed it’s character to agricultural, was not accepted on facts in the absence of evidences being led by the assessee, validating though the statement in principle, i.e., of the matter being principally factual and, further, the said character had to be that obtaining at t…