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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt. Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt. Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. 2.2 Due to difficulties in managing the College, and also due to the personal differences, the trustees decided to discontinue 3 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. the business and entered into an agreement

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt. Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt. Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. 2.2 Due to difficulties in managing the College, and also due to the personal differences, the trustees decided to discontinue 3 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. the business and entered into an agreement

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt. Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt. Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. 2.2 Due to difficulties in managing the College, and also due to the personal differences, the trustees decided to discontinue 3 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. the business and entered into an agreement

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

capital gains, if any, that would accrue to the appellant firm during the assessment year in question. The Appellate Tribunal shall examine the provisions of Section 48, as modified by Section 50(1) of the Income Tax Act, and determine whether or not any short-term gains had accrued to the appellant firm for the assessment year in question. Taking

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 15.03.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Pr.CIT) vide his order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 29.03.2023. The assessee has also filed a Stay Petition qua his appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case

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)

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 03.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, raising several grounds, agitates, as was also the common ground before us, the assessment of Long Term Capital Gain

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)

143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 31/03/2016, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. 2. It would be relevant to recount the background facts of the case. A search u/s. 132 of the Act in the group cases of Dr. P.H. Abdul Majeed and M/s. Sevana Group of medical stores

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)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") dated 14.12.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a dealer in old vehicles, was issued and served a notice u/s.148(1) of the Act on 20.03.2017, consequent to the survey under section 133A

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.12.2008 for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [CIT(A)] vide his Order dated 31.03.2011. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, an individual, who had returned his income for the year at Rs.63,420/- (from

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 24,99,82,580/-. 3. While doing so the AO brought to tax as business income gains arising out of sale of land, of Rs. 11,29,16,575/- claimed to the exempt from tax by holding that the lands sold were not agricultural

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 143 (2) dated 20-9-2016 was issued. The assessee along with her husband had sold total extend of 25.59 acres of land with building at Thrissur for total consideration of Rs 7,69,26,880/-through a common sale deed registered on 25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 143 (2) dated 20-9-2016 was issued. The assessee along with her husband had sold total extend of 25.59 acres of land with building at Thrissur for total consideration of Rs 7,69,26,880/-through a common sale deed registered on 25-9-2014. Out of the above total extent the assessee's portion admeasuring 4.98 acres

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a non-resident Indian. The return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed on 03.09.2021 declaring long term capital gains of Rs. 2,36,26,891/- 2 Thomas Cherian

ELAVANCHALIL ABDUL BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 4,55,83,080/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 4,55,83,080/- by disallowing the claim for exemption of capital gains on sale of agricultural land in survey No. 143/34, Kattippara Village, Thamarassery, Kozhikode. 3. The factual

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

capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266.The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 28.12.2016, determining total income at Rs. 2

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') by 8 Apollo Tyres Ltd. the Assessing Officer (AO') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the additions/disallowances made by the AO are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The additions/disallowances made are unsustainable, unjust, highly excessive