M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Capital Gains is as under, 45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises from

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

section 45(4) should be construed to mean that the expression "or otherwise" is not to be read ejusdem generis with the expression "dissolution of the firm or Body or AOP". The expression "or otherwise" is to be read with the words "transfer of the capital assets" by way of distribution of capital assets. The distribution of capital asset does

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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this section

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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this section

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this section

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, 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

5. Under the scheme of Income Tax Act, in general, only revenue gains are taxable. Capital gain is exception to the general rule. The capital gains chargeable under this section

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation

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

5 Acres or contract receipt under the head other sources in the hands of the assessee, as this right being not legally enforceable, cannot be brought into the ambit of definition of “capital asset” , and hence, could not be income from capital gains. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee had received consideration for the “ease” of cessation