THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

capital gain at Rs.20,27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine

VERAMBALLY THAZHIKUNIYIL VINODAN,KOZHIKODE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06th August, 2025

seizure operations, the actual consideration received by\nthe assessee would not have come into light. The contemptuous\nconduct of the assessee is demonstrated by the fact that sale deed\nwas registered by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 53,80,000/-\nonly and the assessee had not disclosed the capital gain in the return\nof income

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

search seizure operations were conducted in the residential premises of the assessee u/s. 132 of the Act on 18.12.2013. Consequently the AO issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the appellant filed return of income on 30.03.2016 disclosing total income of Rs. 8,53,43,930/- by disclosing additional income

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

seizure operations conducted under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of M/s. Parthas Infopark Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and Shri Mohanan Nair, husband of the assessee, certain incriminating documents in relation to the appellant were found and seized. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, THITUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

seizure operations conducted under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of M/s. Parthas Infopark Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and Shri Mohanan Nair, husband of the assessee, certain incriminating documents in relation to the appellant were found and seized. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant

GOMATHY JALAJA,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

seizure operations conducted under the provisions of section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the case of M/s. Parthas Infopark Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and Shri Mohanan Nair, husband of the assessee, certain incriminating documents in relation to the appellant were found and seized. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the appellant

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

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

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

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

seizure or impounding of any kind relating to the so called foreign income from the appellant during the proceedings under section 132 of the Act. 2. The appellant affirms that the investment made by Shri P.A. Ibrahim, in another company , which is not related or connected to the appellant, and its extension by A.O. by making unheard presumptions, were