KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. THOMAS CHANDY, KANJIRAPALLY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Public Library Buiulding, Shastri Road Kottayam 686001 [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Vs. Thomas Chandy .......... Respondent Karimpanal Post, Post Box No. Vizhikithode, Kanjirpally 686507 Appellant By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

150 cents in Kakkanad, Ernakulam. The appellant executed a registered power of attorney vide document No. 375/2011 on 23.11.2011 for development of that land in favour of M/s Skyline Foundations & Structures Pvt. Ltd. In addition to the execution of power of attorney, the appellant also entered into an agreement with builder. The AO, after making reference to some clauses

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive sec.69 addition of Rs.68 lakhs made in the course of assessment herein dated 31.12.2019; learned DR invited our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under ; “7. During

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

ALZARAFA TRAVEL & MANPOWER CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , KOCHI

Accordingly, Additional\nGround No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee vide Letter dated 15/08/2025\nis allowed

section 292B of the Income Tax Act.\n2.\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in\nupholding the assessment of the gross receipts as income\nwithout allowing 12% of gross receipts as income which was\nallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the\nfirst round of appeal which was accepted by the Department by\nnot filing second