PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. THE DCIT, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Panichikandy Mohandasan .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Advpm0383N] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

nature to compensate and 3 Panichikandy Mohandasan also deleted the disallowance of bank charges and interest. However, confirmed the disallowance u/s. 36(i)(va) of the Act in respect of belated remittance of PF and also disallowance of loss under the head ‘income from house property’ of Rs. 22,97,707/- by holding that when the property was under construction

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)

house 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

justice.” 3.1 It has been submitted that no new facts needs to be considered in order to dispose of the additional ground raised by the assessee vide application dated 05/02/2021. It is submitted that the additional grounds is a legal issue that goes to the root cause of the proceedings. The Ld.AR, thus prayed for the admission of additional grounds

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

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

justice.” 3.1 It has been submitted that no new facts needs to be considered in order to dispose of the additional ground raised by the assessee vide application dated 05/02/2021. It is submitted that the additional grounds is a legal issue that goes to the root cause of the proceedings. The Ld.AR, thus prayed for the admission of additional grounds

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)

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 12.12.20212 in favour of one, Shri P.K. Sasidharan

SHAJU NINAN JOHN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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

nature requires detailing, as indeed regular supervision, with, rather, the payments for work being admittedly linked with the progression of work, so that the same would be required to be verified at regular intervals, both for it being in order as well as its quantum. The claim is sans any evidence, with that furnished, as afore-noted, raising more questions

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI vs. SAMAIRA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle - 2, Ernakulam .......... Appellant Vs. Samaira Properties Pvt. Ltd .......... Respondent Samaira House, Kra-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [Pan: Abbcs6500L] Assessee By: Shri Anoop V.Francis, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

House, KRA-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [PAN: ABBCS6500L] Assessee by: Shri Anoop V.Francis, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

PULIKKAPARAMBIL GEORGE JACOB,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

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

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

nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which

P. K JAYAPRAKASAN,VALAPPAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Panakkal Kumaran Jayaprakasan Panakkal House Valappad Beach Valapad Cit(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala Pan No : Afrpj2700A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : N O N E Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Thrissur Dated 12.08.2020 For The Ay 2015- 16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 2 Of 5 Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 3 Of 5

House Valappad Beach Valapad CIT(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala PAN NO : AFRPJ2700A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. Therefore, in our opinion, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. Therefore, in our opinion, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. Therefore, in our opinion, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. The assesse is a credit co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies

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

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)

House) (ITAT Cochin) dated 06/06/2019 The instant case is relating to the acquisition of the property taken by VISL for vizhinjam port construction is well decided by the ITAT Kochi bench in the case - ITO Vs Smt. Asha Vimala Melpuratharisu Puthen Vecdu.ref: ITA No.568/Coch/2 018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014. "In the relevant case it is held that Character of compulsory acquisition

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

natural justice.\n2.\nYour appellant purchased a flat for Rs.2,20,86,740/- and also\nincurred additional expenses of Rs.31,29,112/- for installing\nsome basic facilities to make the house habitable. Even\nthough the total additional cost incurred on flat immediately\non its purchase was Rs.31,29,112/-, the appellant has claimed\nonly Rs.26,94,260/- which

LAST HOUR MINISTRY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

LOVE INDIA MINISTRIES,THIRUVALLA vs. THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search