MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution; (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became the property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution; (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became the property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution; (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became the property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution; (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became the property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution; (v) where the capital asset, being a share or a stock of a company, became the property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10. We are therefore of the view that even after 01.04.2010, the appellant Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose. The South Indian Bank Ltd. 11. There is yet another

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first issue, the Revenue’s understanding of the amended s. 2(15) stands endorsed by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority 3 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala

MOHAMMED TARIQ THAIMADATHIL,KOCHI vs. THE ITO , NON CORP WARD 1(5), KOCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Mohammed Tariq Thaimadathil, Vs. Ito, Tariq Manzil, Elmkunnapuzha Road, Non Corporate Ward – 1(5), Kaloor, Kochi. Cochin – 682 107. Pan : Abrpt 7993 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior Ar. Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav:

46 days. Therefore, we are of the view that delay happened in this case requires to be condoned. Now we decide the appeal. 5. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.2

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

46,327/-.\n5.\nAgainst the said return of income, assessment was completed by the\nAO at a total income of Rs. 14,50,370/- after making the addition of Rs.\n10,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's\npersonal expenditure.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

46,327/-.\n5. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the\nAO at a total income of Rs. 14,50,370/- after making the addition of Rs.\n10,00,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of assessee's\npersonal expenditure.\n6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

46,45,372 & Loss A/c. Total 17,76,69,258 Ambalapuzha Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee