FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

148(ker) and ITA No.1324 of 2009 being appeal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank was also one of the appeals before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and was part of the aforesaid decision dealing with group of appeals involving similar issue. It was contended that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Court was therefore that prior

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, the DCIT (Exemption), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") issued notice u/s. 148

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KERALA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KERALA vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition

VRINDAVAN BHAVAN PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

2) and 142(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O on account of transfer made by P.S. Enterprise ignoring the submissions and evidences filed by the Appellant company. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition