SRI. E.NOUSHAD,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

house (at Rs.3.08 lakhs); (b) source of deposit in bank account with Federal Bank, Thodiyoor Branch (at Rs.3.30 lakhs);and (c) source of purchase of property admitted in net wealth (Rs.3.18 lakhs), made during the year, i.e., aggregating to Rs.9.56 lakhs. There is no reference, he pointed out, to material seized during search in the assessment order. Like-wise

SRI.E.NOUSHAD,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

house (at Rs.3.08 lakhs); (b) source of deposit in bank account with Federal Bank, Thodiyoor Branch (at Rs.3.30 lakhs);and (c) source of purchase of property admitted in net wealth (Rs.3.18 lakhs), made during the year, i.e., aggregating to Rs.9.56 lakhs. There is no reference, he pointed out, to material seized during search in the assessment order. Like-wise

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

assessment orders, we though observetwo major variations w.r.t. facts in the case of AAPL. One, that AAPL did not own any land. Further, except for the Villa property and the consequent HUDCO loan, it was non-existent in the Silver Sand Island. There were, accordingly, three rightful claimants of ERF, i.e., GHPL, BEPL and BRA (proprietor, Ajit Associates

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

assessment orders, we though observetwo major variations w.r.t. facts in the case of AAPL. One, that AAPL did not own any land. Further, except for the Villa property and the consequent HUDCO loan, it was non-existent in the Silver Sand Island. There were, accordingly, three rightful claimants of ERF, i.e., GHPL, BEPL and BRA (proprietor, Ajit Associates

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Block) Near Sai Teja Apartments, Kozhikode 673001 vs. Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, Telangana 508207 [PAN:CPNPK7453K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024 Appellants by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the two Assessees challenging

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Block) Near Sai Teja Apartments, Kozhikode 673001 vs. Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, Telangana 508207 [PAN:CPNPK7453K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024 Appellants by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is a set of two Appeals by the two Assessees challenging

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

assessment was completed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Non-corporate, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.03.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 9,77,46,777/-. While doing so, the AO made addition on short term capital gains in respect

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Block A in the approved plan, is having land area of less than one acre or 100 cents", is not based on fact but rather a mere impression/inference. The above finding by the AO is not sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncements and detailed discussion made earlier in this order. 5. While framing the assessment, the AO at para.14

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Block A in the approved plan, is having land area of less than one acre or 100 cents", is not based on fact but rather a mere impression/inference. The above finding by the AO is not sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncements and detailed discussion made earlier in this order. 5. While framing the assessment, the AO at para.14

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Block A in the approved plan, is having land area of less than one acre or 100 cents", is not based on fact but rather a mere impression/inference. The above finding by the AO is not sustainable in view of the judicial pronouncements and detailed discussion made earlier in this order. 5. While framing the assessment, the AO at para.14