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)....... (14) "capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

ELIZABETH JOSE,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Elizbeth Jose .......... Appellant Choice House, P.V. Sreedharan Road Kumbalam, Ernakulam 682506 [Pan: Acfpj2569J] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 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 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 03.08 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 14,71,400/- & Unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 35,89,251/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting

capital gain of Rs. 48,05,504/- was brought to tax. The AO further held that since the property was purchased from her husband only through agreement of sale, which is not registered agreement, declined to accept the purchase consideration of Rs. 1,10,89,251/-. 3 Elizbeth Jose 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital assets and in the latter as trading assets. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp (supra) which also decided appeal against the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has observed that Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court was right

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain of the business. As such, where the accounts are prepared without disclosing the real cost of the goods in trade, he is duty bound to determine the taxable income by making computation in the manner he deems fit. Given the clear law in the matter, the issue becomes principally factual, wholly unproved. In our clear view, therefore, the Tribunal