THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain, stands to be assessed as income from other sources. The same though obviates the need for sale (transfer), not in dispute in the instant case, which revolves around the quantum of sale consideration or, rather, its receipt. The mandate and the rule of law has in any case to be upheld, and this clarification is only toward

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)

natural justice, one final opportunity is provided for 24.01.2024. Issue notice by RPAD to the assessee as well as at the email ID afore referred.’ On 24.01.2024, whereat again none appeared nor adjournment application received, it was noted by the Bench that the only Power of Attorney on record is dated 12.12.20212 in favour of one, Shri P.K. Sasidharan

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature refer-red to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would come within the ambit of section 2(47)(v) . In order to attract section 53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be a contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to transfer

STERLING FARM RESEARCH AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is chargeable in the year of ‘transfer’. The AO had, not inquiring in the matter, merely accepted the version of the assessee. Adverting to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), wherein it had been held that an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect

JOYCE JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

gain provision would not be applicable. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not produced any details regarding the sale of agricultural produce and no agricultural income was reported during the earlier years. 6. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The appeal was filed with

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

VIJAYALEKSHMI K S,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vijayalekshmi K.S. The Income Tax Officer- 1(3) Tc 10/1148, Lekshmi Vilas Aayakr Bhavan, Kawdiar Vattiyoorkavu Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thirivananthapuram 695013 [Pan: Abipl7317C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee before us filed a certificate issued by the Trivandrum Corporation dated 26.12.2021 certifying that the land in dispute

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

natural justice, informing the assessee of the case he has to meet. In the instant case, on the contrary, the assessee has himself narrated the entire facts in relation to the capital gain

PRASANNAKUMARAN UNNITHAN CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,ALAPPUZHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs. 6,80,19,326. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite the assessee seeking adjournment by making an entry through the ITBA portal, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 23.08.2023 without affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.HOLIDAY MARKETING P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

capital gains the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the AO did not provide the alleged incriminating material to the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice

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)

capital gain (LTCG for short) of Rs.99,39,969/- after deducting the index cost at Rs.50,896/- and making an addition on income from other sources amounting to Rs.3,40,903/- being the interest income received from the bank under the head ‘income from other sources’. 6. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority

GEORGE SUMESH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO,WARD-1 & TPS, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gains without granting the facility of VC to the assessee. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that on page 8 of the assessment order, the AO specifically records that no such request was made by the assessee in this regard. We find that the ld.CIT(A) though recorded the submission of the assessee that the opportunity

PULIKKAPARAMBIL GEORGE JACOB,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

gain arisen. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Section 2(47) of the Act, defining ‘transfer’, which is the bone of contention between the parties, and the issue arising in the instant case, reads as under: Definitions. 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised by the assessee

LATE C.M. JOSEPH REP BY SHRI. L/H MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Slate C.M. Joseph Dcit/Acit, Central Circle Rep. By L/H Mariamma Joseph Hotel Floral Park Public Library Building Vs. Gandhi Nagar Sasthri Road Kottayam 686008 Kottayam 686001 Pan – Aftpj2439Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

capital gain on sale of rural agricultural land at Rs.3,15,53,421/- without any evidence or basis and without considering the facts of the case. The action of the Assessing Officer is against law, facts and natural justice

THEKKEDATHU RAMAN PILLAI BALACHANDRAN,PACHALAM, KOCHI vs. ITO, NON. CORP. WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No

gain on sale of agricultural\nproperty Rs.1,41,14,718/- and treated it as taxable long term capital\ngain. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.\nCIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)passed a speaking order without considering\nthe ground of the assessee related to sale of property in nature of\nagricultural land. The appeal

PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , KOCHI CIRCLE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

capital gains of Rs. 27,48,000/- on sale of land as the appellant had failed to furnish information called for in support of the return of income submitted by the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

justice be done to the appellant by setting aside the order appealed against.” The assessee vide letter dated 24th September 2024 has also 3. raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under: . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 8 of 165 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer ("Learned

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

justice be done to the appellant by setting aside the order appealed against.” The assessee vide letter dated 24th September 2024 has also 3. raised additional ground of appeal which reads as under: . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 8 of 165 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer ("Learned