M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

Housing Loan Interest not allowable 92,168 6 Krishnakumar since property is not in the name of assessee but in the name of Smt. Chandramathiyama. Principal repayment of loan for 87,293 7 John addition/repair of the property is not eligible for deduction

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

house property and also not granting deduction under section 80C on the grounds that the deduction was not claimed in the original

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act. Before us, the assessee furnished neither the audited statement of accounts nor the details of Interest & House property

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

deductible under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act. Before us, the assessee furnished neither the audited statement of accounts nor the details of Interest & House property

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House Property” instead of setting off the same against the income added under section 69 of the Act by placing reliance upon the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that the amendment, whereby the set-off of any loss is denied against the income, inter-alia, referred to in section

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

property tax as being paid in his name. Therefore, he is entitled to claimed interest paid on housing loan as a deduction

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. The ld. AR also contended that cost of improvement was incurred by the assessee

MOOLADETH FATHIMA NOOR,CALICUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mooladeth Fathima Noor .......... Appellant Noor Mahal, Devagiri, Medical College Calicut 673008 [Pan: Abzpf8525H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer,Wd-1(3), Calicut .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

property sold into residential house and land. In respect of residential house the appellant claimed deduction u/s. 54, which was allowed

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

deduction against the rental income. The AO was of the view that amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was assessable under the head income from house property

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

deduction against the rental income. The AO was of the view that amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was assessable under the head income from house property

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

deducted in computing income liable for application for charitable purpose inasmuch as the cost of the capital assets, on which the same stands claimed, had already been allowed in full by way of application of income on the deployment of funds on their acquisition. The same, though a part of the statute w.e.f. AY 2015-2016 [s.11(6)] inasmuch

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

deducted in computing income liable for application for charitable purpose inasmuch as the cost of the capital assets, on which the same stands claimed, had already been allowed in full by way of application of income on the deployment of funds on their acquisition. The same, though a part of the statute w.e.f. AY 2015-2016 [s.11(6)] inasmuch

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

deducted in computing income liable for application for charitable purpose inasmuch as the cost of the capital assets, on which the same stands claimed, had already been allowed in full by way of application of income on the deployment of funds on their acquisition. The same, though a part of the statute w.e.f. AY 2015-2016 [s.11(6)] inasmuch

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

property. The assessee originally sold two 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

EEPEES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

house property and denied the other deductions except the 30% towards repair and maintenance as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee

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

House, Ward 2(2), Kallekundur Road, Vettikattiri Post, Thrissur. Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur – 679 531. PAN : ECBPK 8337R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Ramnath, CA Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of CIT (Appeals

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and, accordingly, deemed as income as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 5.2 Our first preliminary observation, also made during hearing, to no satisfactory answer by Shri Kannan, was as to how could the first three amounts regarded as not satisfactorily explaining the nature and source of investment be regarded as ‘personal savings’, i.e., as explained

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Property of Rs. 72,000 , the provisions u/s 115BBE r.w.s 69 are applicable as the source for the such amount has not been explained with any cogent evidence even during the survey/assessment proceedings but also during the revision proceedings. Therefore this amount is required to be taxed. Further Rs. 5,28,000 said to be the income derived from