Search: house property

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

House, Central Circle-1, Mekkadambu – P.O. Ernakulam. Muvattupuzha. PAN:AAFPE 4655 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri T. M. Sreedharan Respondent by Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 27/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 04/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. All these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dated 31/03/2016

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

House Vs. Ward 1(3) Kandanisseri Trichur. Thrissur – 680 102. PAN : AAICS5338J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Bomi Daruwala, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2019 Date of Hearing : 15.10.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 29.03.2019 passed

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

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

house. Further, the money received in 2000-2001 on sale of ancestral property was utilized for marriage of their daughter, Kavitha. Coming to the balance-sheet of Prasun Industries, as in the case of Trust Rubber, so that it cannot be a coincidence, cash representing sale proceeds (rs.23.20 lacs), is, save rs. 2 lacs, withdrawn on 25/8/2007, the sale date

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

property; The assessment was accordingly set aside by him for de novo consideration, and making an assessment in accordance with law per a speaking order. 3. We have considered the rival contentions, and perused the material of record. The assessee’s first objection before us, adverting to the notice u/s. 263(1) of the Act dated

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

ITA 18/COCH/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

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. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 16/COCH/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

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. DCIT, KOLLAN

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

ITA 17/COCH/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 153ASection 153C

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

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

ITA 667/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013

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)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh BFor Respondent: 13.03.2024

Section 10(37)Section 250

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

THE ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CALICUT vs. SHRI. C. ABDUL MAHAROOF, MALAPPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.M.V.Venugopal, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 148

House, Putharikkal Vs. (International Taxation) Parappangadi Kozhikode. Malappuram – 676 303. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Revenue by : Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Assessee by : Sri.M.V.Venugopal, CA Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2020 Date of Hearing : 17.09.2020 O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM : ITA No.234/Coch/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue and CO No.24/Coch/2016 is a cross objection filed by the assessee

RANGAYYAN MANIKANDAN,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WARD -1 , PALAKKAD

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

ITA 1003/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Stay Application No. 87/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1003/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Rangayyan Manikandan Income Tax Officer, 30/617, Neikkara Street, Ward-1, Palakkad, Vs. Neikkara, Palakkad-678 012 Kerala Kerala Pan/Gir No. Adwpm 1554 E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sivadas Chettoor, Ca : Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

house property loss of Rs.42,466/-, income from insurance agency as LIC agent of Rs.1,36,152/-, income from oriental insurance agency of Rs.32,773/- and 1/6th of share of income from hereditary commission amounting to Rs.3,76,050/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was reopened

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

House Ward - 2, Alleppey vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [PAN: ACUPM8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal by the assessee challenges the validity of the reassessment under section

RAMLA HAMEED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the Assessing

ITA 393/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 48

house on the said land without engaging any external contractor. The construction was self-managed and funded by the assessee. The assessee supported the cost of construction claim by furnishing a valuation certificate from a registered valuer estimating the construction cost at Rs.57,00,000/- .The assessee further argued that the valuation of the property by the Departmental Valuation Officer