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

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

50C of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant sought exemption from capital gains by stating that the capital gains were wrongly offered to tax by submitting that the property sold was agricultural property situated in rural area and, therefore, it cannot be termed as “capital asset” within the meaning of section

SARAMMA MATHEW , ERNAKULAM ( PRESENTLY STAYING AT USA) vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Saramma Mathew The Deputy Commissioner Of 5235 Margaret’S Place V. Income-Tax Brent Wood 370270 Usa (International Taxation) Pan :Domps1759R. Kochi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2024

gain amounting to Rs,128,67,944/- in assessee’s hands, vide assessment herein dated 31.03.2022 framed as per the Dispute Resolution Panel “DRP” directions dated 08.02.2022. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the sole substantial issue before us is that of 2 Smt.Saramma Mathew determination of cost of acquisition of the assessee’s capital asset sold/transferred

THOMAS GEORGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gains by adopting the value of the land as applicable for stamp duty purposes. In support of the contention, the assessee has also filed valuation report of the Registered Valuer. However, the DRP could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and affirmed the draft order. Thereafter the AO passed the final assessment year. 5. Aggrieved

SUJA MARIAMMA GEORGE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTL.TXN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

capital gains by adopting the value of the land as applicable for stamp duty purposes. In support of the contention, the assessee has also filed valuation report of the Registered Valuer. However, the DRP could not find any force in the arguments of the assessee and affirmed the draft order. Thereafter the AO passed the final assessment year. 5. Aggrieved

CLINT MARTEL WILFRED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain taking the sale consideration as per the Deed i.e., Rs.1,01,40,000. The assessee contended before the AO that difference of Rs.21,54,000 cannot be brought under the tax net as the property was sold to Corporation of Cochin and there is no scope of unaccounted money. The assessee further submitted that the provisions of section

THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. LATE SRI.C.P. VASUDEVAN NAIR REP BY POA HOLDER MS.DEEPA NAIR, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

50C(2) during the assessment proceedings. 3. The Learned CIT(A) should have considered the fact that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has been given sufficient opportunities to state any objection for adopting the value adopted by SRO. 4. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the DVO has not given any reason for the huge difference