Search: disallowance

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

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

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

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

disallowed 3,200 8,88,689 Business Loss (-) (-)14,03,543 II. Long Term Capital Gain: Sale consideration of 88.740 cents of land 6,50,00,000 Less:Indexed cost of acquisition Cost as on 1.4.81 70,39,220 7039220 x 351/100 247,07,662 Add: Expenses on sale 5,000 247,12,662 Long term capital gain

M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

disallowed. Addition:5,038/- I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 47,72,756/- Addition (as per para 5.3 Rs.1,08,37,719/- Addition (as per para 5.4) Rs. 5,038/- Total Rs.1,56,15,513/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.PRINCE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS P. LTD, PALAKKAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

disallowed. Addition:5,038/- I.T.A. Nos. 36 to 41/Coch/2019 & ITA Nos. 21 to 26/Coch/2019 Accordingly, the assessment was completed as under: Income from Business[as returned] Rs. 47,72,756/- Addition (as per para 5.3 Rs.1,08,37,719/- Addition (as per para 5.4) Rs. 5,038/- Total Rs.1,56,15,513/- Less: Chapter VIA Deduction (80G) Rs. 2500/- Total

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 81/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 80/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 79/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

133A was conducted on 31.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 153C was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C on 29.03.2014 by making additions towards ITA Nos.78, 79, 80, 81/Coch/2016. 5 M/s.Pentagon Builders. disallowance of expenditure

SRI.P.S. SREENIVASAN,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO,WD-1, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 515/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Samuel Thomas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

section 133A on 07.01.2011 yielded no results, as no incriminating material or unexplained asset was found; 3. There is no denial of the fact that the 'Kalyanamandaparn' known as YESODA was run by the assessee for the last so many years. The opening credit balance shown in the compiled accounts in the absence of regular accounts was the past savings

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 102/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 463/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 153ASection 153C

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

NEW COCHIN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOCHI

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed by the assessee. The AO conducted survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act, wherein certain incriminating material was stated to have been found. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2009. In response to the notice the appellant filed return of income

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies only to those payments in respect of any expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction from income. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the disallowance of car depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

Sections of the Act. In such an event, the calculation of income tax is specifically governed by the provisions of Sec.115BBE. It is submitted that the above requirements are not specified in the appellant's case so as to invoke the higher rate of tax of 60% leviable u/s 115BBE of the Act. (iii) In the above circumstances