ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

capital gain does not arise. It is further submitted that the joint development agreement entered into by the appellant with the developer was not registered. Only the power of attorney was registered. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable. 7. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submits that

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

capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal and the same was not on merits. C. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the levy of 200% of the tax as penalty under Sec.270A was highly exaggerated. During the course of appeal, the Appellant had produced documents to substantiate that the quantum assessment would not be sustained

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal and the same was not on merits. C. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the levy of 200% of the tax as penalty under Sec.270A was highly exaggerated. During the course of appeal, the Appellant had produced documents to substantiate that the quantum assessment would not be sustained

SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

capital gains, it is submitted that the properties were sold in order to pay the debts of the firm and the share of the appellant in the property was only 2%. However, the AO rejected the above explanation and made addition of Rs. 14,86,25,000/-, 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

capital gains on sale of immovable property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was file before the CIT(A) with a delay of 122 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

condone the delay,and admit the appeal. Ajit Associates (P.) Ltd. (AAPL) 3. The assessee-company, in the business of real estate development, purchased lands in an Island along with two group companies, i.e., Beaver Estate Private Limited (BEPL) and Good Homes Private Limited (GHPL), with a view to develop the Island as per the master plan, and sell

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

condone the delay,and admit the appeal. Ajit Associates (P.) Ltd. (AAPL) 3. The assessee-company, in the business of real estate development, purchased lands in an Island along with two group companies, i.e., Beaver Estate Private Limited (BEPL) and Good Homes Private Limited (GHPL), with a view to develop the Island as per the master plan, and sell

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

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income of Rs. 38,32,110/-. 3. The appellant, in response to the show cause notice

NARIKKOLIL HAMEED,KOZHIKODE vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Narikkolil Hameed .......... Appellant Narikolil House, Kummankode P.O. Nadapuram, Calicut 673504 [Pan: Aaqph1056H] Vs. Ddit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Kochi Appellant By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

capital gain after allowing brokerage expenditure of Rs. 1,67,500/- and the balance amount was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a condonation

GOOD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains and not under the head "Income from Business" 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) and the learned assessing authority grossly erred in determining the alleged Income from Easement Rights fees at Rs: 73,30,680/ under the head Income from

BEAVER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE RANGE 1, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains and not under the head "Income from Business" 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) and the learned assessing authority grossly erred in determining the alleged Income from Easement Rights fees at Rs: 73,30,680/ under the head Income from

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter on merits. I.T.A. No.273/COCH/2024 Raju Joseph Vayalat 4. On perusal of the facts, it is evident that the assessee could not substantiate the total credit of Rs. 2,33,60,354 in his capital account. Out of this, only Rs. 26,00,000 from his brother and Rs. 55.58 lakh from

LISSY VARGHESE,KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Lissy Varghese .......... Appellant Koickalathu Ebeneser, Manakala S.O., Kadampanad, Pathanamthitta. [Pan: Alfpv 4041 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2, Thiruvalla. Appellant By: Shri Sarath Kumar, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025

capital gains’. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 557 days in filing the appeal. The assessee

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.1,75,34,220/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon by the assessee

MADHAVAN SUNDARAN PILLAI,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

condone the said delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and proceeded to take up the main appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income and based on the information received by the department, the AO alleged that the assessee’s mother sold her immovable property and major

LALY CHIRAKANDATHIL GEORGE,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Laly Chirakandathil George The Acit Corp. Circle 1(2) Kattarukudiyil, Rmv Road, Kochi Vs. Elamakara, Kochi-26

capital gains (long term)’, thereby declaring total income at Rs.10,42,400/-. The assessee contended that the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the 3 Laly Chirakandathil George vs. The ACIT Corp. Circle1(2) CPC has erroneously determined total income at Rs.29,18,400/- after disallowing the claim made by the assessee