THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

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

section (3) thereof, would have no bearing on the merits of the case. The decision by the first appellate authority for that year, as for the current year, cannot bind this Tribunal, so that the matter cannot be regarded as covered, and would require being adjudicated by it on merits. The same would though be relevant and taken into account

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 on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee ……. (2) & (3) ............................ (4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within

JOJO,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jojo .......... Appellant Kattalapeedika House, Mattathur, Thrissur [Pan: Bycpj5296A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vibin K.K., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 20,00,000/- The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2024

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme as prescribed under subsection (2) of section 54 of the Act. The appellant had not filed any proof of completion of construction of new house before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

section 54 of the Act at Rs.91,05,096 in respect of construction of a residential house during the relevant year against the capital gain arising to her on sale of 3 pieces of land sold during March, 2013 to November, 2013. The claim was, admitting her mistake inasmuch as the capital asset/s sold was not a residential house, requested

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

capital gain in the return\nof income u/s 139(1) by showing the actual sale consideration of Rs.\n13,72,99,000/-. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble\nKerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/sAl-Ameen Educational\nTrust in ITA Nos. 199 & 203/2013, dt. 13/03/2018 is squarely\napplicable as the assessee failed to show

THOMAS VARGHESE,TRIVANDRUM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Thomas Varghese .......... Appellant Manthottathu Bunglow, Hose No. 38 Lane 1, Peroorada, Trivandrum 695005 [Pan: Altpv0273E] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent International Taxation Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

Capital Gains’. However, the 2 Thomas Varghese appellant had not filed the return of income for AY 2010-11 under the provisions of section 139(1

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted on 06-05-2010 to the Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No

section 143(3) of the Act. The\nLd. AO rejected the long-term capital 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

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a). the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

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

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

ABC BUILDWAERS 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

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

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

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

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

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL IRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding

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

gain, and with no indication that these credits were related to investments in the foreign entity, the argument stands that these transactions were purely for charitable purposes. The lack of material evidence to suggest otherwise leads to the conclusion that these payments do not support the revenue’s claim of unaccounted investment. 20.20 Without prejudice to the above finding