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

section 50C of the Act rejecting the contention of the appellant that it is agricultural land for want of proof of agricultural activities by the appellant. On receipt of the draft assessment order, objections were filed before the DRP contending that the property sold is agricultural land which is situated in rural area and earmarked as Jirayt land since

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

1) dated 31.03.2022 in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that both the lower authorities have added the long terms capital gain amounting to Rs,128,67,944/- in assessee’s hands, vide assessment herein dated 31.03.2022 framed

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

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

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.

1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kochi is opposed to law, weight of evidence and facts of the case. 2. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to refer the sale of property for valuation u/ s 50C(2) as the assessee