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 u/s.54F of the Act on the capital gains

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

Term Capital Gains in the hands of the appellant mainly because all the four persons, i.e., Shri. P. Manoj, Shri. P.M. Vijayan, Shri. A.A. Balachandran and Shri. K.J. Thomas, were closely associated with the appellant, Shri. T. G. Chandrakumar, and because, it was the appellant who negotiated the sale of land on behalf of everyone. The Assessing Officer also held

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CRICLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Dcit, Vs. Kbc Enclaves, International Taxation Circle, Laikadu, Perunna P.O. Trivandrum. Changanacherry, Kerala – 686 102. Pan :Ajbpc 2186 R Assessee Respondent

house property – Rs.28,000/- iii. Business loss – Rs.35,52,891/- iv. Long term capital loss – Rs.22,14,862/- v. Short term capital gain

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

long-term lease basis in it’s capacityas the owner of the house property, which was accordingly held as a fixed (capital) asset, yielding rental income, and not as stock- in-trade (SIT). There had been no regular purchase and sale of property, as sought to be made by the Assessing Officer (AO), with each sale being accompanied by strong

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

long-term lease basis in it’s capacityas the owner of the house property, which was accordingly held as a fixed (capital) asset, yielding rental income, and not as stock- in-trade (SIT). There had been no regular purchase and sale of property, as sought to be made by the Assessing Officer (AO), with each sale being accompanied by strong

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

capital gain was worked out to Rs 1,40,42,400/-. The assessee initially claimed Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property at "Skyline Infinity', Thrissur and Rs 54,18,377 has been admitted as taxable Long Term

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

capital gain was worked out to Rs 1,40,42,400/-. The assessee initially claimed Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property at "Skyline Infinity', Thrissur and Rs 54,18,377 has been admitted as taxable Long Term

ELINJIPPURATH VELAYUDHAN KOCHUMON,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmielinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon The Income Tax Officer -2(2) Elinjipurath House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [Pan:Asnpk4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [PAN:ASNPK4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Dileep Balachandran, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 21.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

long term capital gains at Rs. 2,75,29,891/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the final assessment order, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the DRP ought not have held that the property sold is capital asset, inasmuch as, the property is situated

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

BHAGYALAKSHMI DEVARAJAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagyalakshmi Devarajan .......... Appellant 9B Rds Avenue One, Panampally Nagar Opp. Passport Office, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Aawpd9511F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi Appellant By: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

house property’, ‘income from long term capital gains’ and income from ‘other sources’. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [PAN:AGNPM9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of order dated 25.11.2022 by the Commissioner

JOYCE JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Puthenveli, The Income Tax Officer – 2, Puthenvelikkara, Aluva. Ernakulam – 683 594. Vs. PAN: BACPJ8168F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 13-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order

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

house property’, ‘income from business, and ‘capital gains’. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 02.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2 Beneesh Kumar 2, 13,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed

SINI NOUSHAD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of her residential property by the assessee during the year for Rs.42 lakhs, at Rs. 39.11 lakhs. The assessee, in first appeal, submitted that she had in fact manually Sini Noushad v. The Income Tax Officer filed the return on 24.12.2019, declaring LTCG on sale of the said property

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

long term capital gain at Rs 99,39,969 as against Nil claimed by the appellant. The appellant's claim is based on her understanding and belief that the transfer of her land to VISL amounted to compulsory acquisition. 3. According to the Assessing officer the property was sold to VISL through a sale deed and since on the date