THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 47 was omitted and enabling clauses (3) & (4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section

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

47(ii) was deleted by the amendment that introduced section 45(4). Thus, the purpose and object of the Finance Act, 1987 was to charge tax arising on distribution of capital assets of the firm which otherwise was not subject to tax. Therefore, the language of section 45(4) should be construed to mean that the expression "or otherwise

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

section 2(47) of the Act. Hence, it was submitted that consideration if any, received or receivable in lieu of relinquishment of a capital asset or extinguishment of any right therein would constitute capital receipt only and not revenue receipt. It was submitted that the profits and gains