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

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

long-term capital gain at Rs. 30,97,266 after disallowing the claim of cost of improvement. Accordingly, the appeal

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

long. So, however, to comply with the principle of natural justice, one final opportunity is provided for 24.01.2024. Issue notice by RPAD to the assessee as well as at the email ID afore referred.’ On 24.01.2024, whereat again none appeared nor adjournment application received, it was noted by the Bench that the only Power of Attorney on record is dated

VIJAYALEKSHMI K S,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vijayalekshmi K.S. The Income Tax Officer- 1(3) Tc 10/1148, Lekshmi Vilas Aayakr Bhavan, Kawdiar Vattiyoorkavu Vs. Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Thirivananthapuram 695013 [Pan: Abipl7317C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

long-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 80,20,774/- and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the same amount. However, the assessee during the assessment 2 Vijayalekshmi K.S. proceedings claimed that said gain was arising fromthe transfer of agricultural land and therefore the same is not taxable. However, the Assessing Officer

LALY CHIRAKANDATHIL GEORGE,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Laly Chirakandathil George The Acit Corp. Circle 1(2) Kattarukudiyil, Rmv Road, Kochi Vs. Elamakara, Kochi-26

disallowing the set off of short term capital loss (STCL for short) amounting to Rs.18,76,000/- against the long term capital gain

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. KONUPARAMBAN OUSEPH ITTOOP, POTTA CHALAKKUDY

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2013-14 Konuparamban Ouseph Ittoop .......... Appellant Potta, Thrissur – 680722. Pan: Aacpi9545G Vs. Dcit .......... Respondent Thrissur. Assessment Year:2013-14

disallowance of cost of improvement while computing capital gains on sale of immovable property. On appeal before the CIT(A), CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to give the benefit of cost of improvement based on the evidence produced by the assessee and also grant the benefit of indexation of cost

JAWAHAR NAZEEM MOHAMMED NAZEEM,TRIVANDUM vs. ITO WARD 1(4) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

capital gain account scheme. The assessee also filed all the details required by the AO. But the AO disallowed the claim of exemption u/s. 54 and arrived the long term

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

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant

SASI CHELLAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

long term capital gains but sustained the addition at Rs. 1,18,13,883/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. As against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the capital introduced during the year were only from

MARIA JOHN,WAYANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KALPETTA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2024-25 Maria John .......... Appellant Nooranal, Sultan Bathery, Chungam, Wayanad. [Pan: Fadpm 3434 G] Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Kalpetta .......... Respondent

long term capital gain of Rs. 5,55,497/- and also income from other source of Rs.1,49,455/-. The said return of income was processed by the CPC 2 Maria John u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') vide intimation dated 28/02/2025 disallowing

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

long-term finance (computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account: Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts carried to such reserve account from time to time exceeds twice the amount of the paid-up share capital and of the general reserves