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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

3 and 4, in the light of the discussions in this judgment and the remand necessitated to the Tribunal for a specific finding on the extent of short term 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

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)

3) read with 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

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

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

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

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

3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54,18,340/ and claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the investment made in 'Skyline Infinity' apartment, Thrissur. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143 (2) dated

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

3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54,18,340/ and claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the investment made in 'Skyline Infinity' apartment, Thrissur. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143 (2) dated

INKEL LTD,KAKKANAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 14.06.2021, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,54,80,455. In the profit and loss account, the assessee had shown Rs.7,78,94,200 as income from disposal of land and buildings on long-term finance lease, and also claimed an expenditure of Rs.3

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 12-12-2017. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have understood that the payments for an aggregate amount of Rs. 6,55,650 by cash has been made towards consideration for the purchase of capital assets as per details given below and provisions of section 40A(3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 20.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, vide order u/s. 263 dated 24.11.2020. 2. The appeal, filed on 30.05.2022, is within time, i.e., in view of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of reckoning limitation by the Hon'ble Apex Court