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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

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

capital gain has to be determined accordingly." Accordingly, the assessing officer determined the total income of the assessee as under: I. Business loss as claimed (-) 22,92,232 Less: 1. Retrenchment compensation Disallowed 8,85,489 2. Donation disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain under Section 50B is the sale proceeds as reduced by the net worth. 6. From the above findings, we hold that the sale

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain under Section 50B is the sale proceeds as reduced by the net worth. 6. From the above findings, we hold that the sale

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance by the AO is made merely for the reason that the sale proceeds are not deposited in the capital gain account scheme before the due date for filing the return. The ld. AR also submitted that the deduction u/s. 54F cannot be denied for the reason that the amount is not deposited in the capital gain account scheme

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

long term capital assets in different survey numbers on 10.07.2017 by way of separate sale deeds and he has utilized the sale consideration against the two residential houses purchased on 11.07.2016 and 14.07.2016. The assessee claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act on the capital gains by stating that he had invested the sale proceeds of the two capital assets

M/S.AMALGAM FOODS LTD,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-1, ALLEPPEY, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed in earlier year’s u/s. 43B. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee did not press Ground No. 4 and accordingly, Ground No. 4 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The facts of the case are that during the year, the assessee company had earned other income of Rs.8,71,03,872/-. It included Rs.8

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

term capital asset was transferred between 01.01.2006 and 30.06.2006 (both dates inclusive). (Sharat Chandra) Director Government of India” 3.5 Though in the Board’s Notification it is mentioned that REC and NHAI bonds are available from 01/07/2006, according to the assessee, the same was issued only 7 I.T.A.Nos.122/Coch/2016 & 61/Coch/2016 on 22/01/2007. The fact of issue of these bonds only

SRI. PAUL VADAKKUMCHERRY,TRICHUR vs. THE DCIT, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

disallowed losses only on the ground that the receipt from canteen was on the lower side. This conclusion of the A.O. according to the learned AR is not correct. It was submitted that the total cinema collection is only Rs.85,967 and hence the collection of Rs.36,400 from canteen is quite reasonable. 3.4 The learned Departmental Representative

M/S.SRI.SRINIVAS WHEAT INDUSTRIES P. LTD,THEVARA vs. THE ITO, COR WARD-2(1), RANGE-2 KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

long term capital gain, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54G of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.4,45,00,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Long Term Capital Gains. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer issued notice stating that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act as according to the AO, the assessee has acquired a residential house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Long Term Capital Gains. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer issued notice stating that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act as according to the AO, the assessee has acquired a residential house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section

SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL MENON,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

long term capital gains. Therefore, we confirm the imposition of penalty with regard to disallowance of claim of expenses on brokerage