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

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 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. That is to say, the same income, rather than being assessed as capital gain, stands to be assessed as income from other sources. The same though obviates the need for sale (transfer), not in dispute in the instant case, which revolves around the quantum of sale consideration or, rather, its receipt

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 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. That is to say, the same income, rather than being assessed as capital gain, stands to be assessed as income from other sources. The same though obviates the need for sale (transfer), not in dispute in the instant case, which revolves around the quantum of sale consideration or, rather, its receipt

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

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 50, implying capital gain being assessable as a short-term capital gain (STCG) shall apply instead of sec.50B for `slump sale’, as invoked, returning capital gain as LTCG, which stood assessed as such. (b) a sum of Rs. 1 crore, forming part of the sale consideration per the said Agreement, was not included in the computation of capital gain

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 gain liable to be taxed for the current year. No dispute in this regard stands raised before us and, accordingly, not responded to by the other side. So, however, the assessee having raised a specific ground in this respect, which was not specifically stated as not pressed, we consider it incumbent on us to opine there-upon

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

section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which is even otherwise subject to the provisions of the Act, shall not operate to bring the said income to tax for the current year even if it is received or applied during the current year. The capital gain for the current year is to be accordingly reworked by excluding the same

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

34. From the above decisions the test for identifying an expenditure as to whether it is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure can be stated as under (1) If the amount spent was for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new advantage, it would be a capital expenditure. (2) If on the other hand

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 54B of the Act, which only requires the assessee, for a claim of exemption, to establish agricultural activity for a defined period of time prior to its transfer. This is as the law recognizes, even as explained in Officer-in-Charge (supra), that the passage of time could result in a change of the character of land. The assessee

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

section 2(14) have no application to the facts of present case. P.C. Jose 22. Next we proceed to examine the nature of the land based on the material on record. Undisputedly, the lands were classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue records of the state government. There is no dispute on this aspect. The assessee also discharged the onus

SATISH KISHORE C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 16A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act, the provisions of which become applicable when a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Act, the AO has to complete the assessment in conformity with the report of the Valuation Officer. Hence the AO is directed to taken the FMV of the land

JAYALAKSHMI C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 16A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act, the provisions of which become applicable when a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Act, the AO has to complete the assessment in conformity with the report of the Valuation Officer. Hence the AO is directed to taken the FMV of the land

RAJESHWARI C MENON,THRISSUR vs. DCIT ,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Satish Kishore C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bwrpm3657H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Jayalakshmi C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1772M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Rajeshwari C. Menon Dcit (International Taxation) Krishna Vihar, Kuruvath Lane Kochi Sankarayya Road Vs. Thrissur 680004 [Pan: Bvypm1866N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 16A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act, the provisions of which become applicable when a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Act, the AO has to complete the assessment in conformity with the report of the Valuation Officer. Hence the AO is directed to taken the FMV of the land

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

GOOD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-1 on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by both the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

BEAVER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE RANGE 1, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-1 on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by both the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 20.11.2007 for assessment year (AY) 2001-02, since upheld in first appeal vide Order dated 24.01.2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘CIT(A)’ for short). 2.1 At the outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, the ld. counsel for the assessee-appellant, would submit that