M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income or fifteen thousand rupees, whichever is less, Explanation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

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

c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38; I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

C) r.w.s. 50B to treat the same as slump sales. 3.3 It was contended that the Taloja unit initially leased out from innovative Marine Foods Ltd., an associate concern of the assessee was taken possession by the assesseeon 31/03/1997, being the leasehold right for factory building and office building and plant and machinery and on these dates the assessee

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

C) r.w.s. 50B to treat the same as slump sales. 3.3 It was contended that the Taloja unit initially leased out from innovative Marine Foods Ltd., an associate concern of the assessee was taken possession by the assesseeon 31/03/1997, being the leasehold right for factory building and office building and plant and machinery and on these dates the assessee

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

13. Next question that is required to be determined by us is applicability of section 48 and section 50 of the Act. The provisions of section 48 provides for the method of computation of income chargeable under the head capital gains. Provisions of section 48 stipulates that the income chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ shall be computed by deducting

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year