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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes purp of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes purp of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

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

section 55(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of, inter alia, a tenancy right. would be taken as nil. By this amendment, the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes purp of the provisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words, the cost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate would

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

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital asset of the recipient and therefore would not apply to stock-in-trade, raw material and consumable stores of any business of such recipient. C. In several cases of immovable property transactions, there is a time gap between the booking of a property and the receipt of such property on registration, which results in a taxable differential

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54/54F of the act. 13. Regarding the issue relating to the cost of improvement of Rs. 12.52 lakhs, we note that admittedly the assessee has taken loan for the construction of the building amounting to Rs. 7.36 lakhs which was also accepted by the AO. It is a prevailing practice in the market that the banks do not give

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)

capital gains would be taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into, even if the transfer of the immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law. Under section 2(47)(v) any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature refer

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

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)

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

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)

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

2 separate transactions of sale of Lands. Allowance of Commission Paid on House where 54F was Claimed (vii) Consequently the brokers commission paid for the reinvestment disallowed w/s S4F is incorrect and ought to be allowed. Disallowance of Document Writing Charges & Land Development Charges (viii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has arbitrarily disallowed 90% & 80% of the expenses incurred towards Document

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

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained in the non-returning thereof: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (1) to (13

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate and dealing in wedding cards, New Year greeting cards, etc. The return of income for AY 2008-09 was filed declaring total income of Rs. 13,26,58,460/-. Against the said return of income the assessment was completed

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

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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 and income from other

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

capital asset as defined under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Even then, if such lands are found to be situated within the distance specified in items (a) &(b) of section 2(14)(iii), then the gains arising on sale of such lands does not qualify for exemption from tax. 10. In the facts of the present case

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

13. We carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant. On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) was made by the AO solely for the reason of non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to foreign AE. The AO was of the opinion that if a particular payment