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

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

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

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

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

property’ (IFHP), and cannot be treated as business income. Reliance stood also placed by it on the decisions in Addl.CIT v. Surat Art and Silk Mfrs. Assn. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC); CIT v. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC); and DIT(E) v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

SANATANA DHARMA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

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)

22,651/- on account of long term and short-term capital gain. 8. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from

SREENI PARAMESWARAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

10%, as dividend to the extent the company possess accumulated profit: “Definitions 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (22)(a) … (d) (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after

ECO VISION PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR, KERALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps, V. Thirissur Edattukaran House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. Pan : Aadce2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipin K K, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, By The Cpc, Bengaluru & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), For The Assessment Year 2020–21 Vide Order Dated 28.11.2024. 2. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is The Enhancement Of The Tax Rate From 25% To 30% By The Cpc Under Section 154, Despite The Assessee Being Otherwise Eligible For The Lower Tax Rate In Terms Of The Finance Act, 2019. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In Business & Had Filed Its Return Of Income

House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. PAN : AADCE2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vipin K K, CA Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR. Date of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed under Section 154 of the Income

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

10,565/-\n: 5,80,397/-\n: 4,52,912/-\n: 3,69,000/-\n:53,952./-\n: 26,94,260/-\nThese amounts were spend immediately on purchase of flat\nwere incurred for making the house habitable such as\nwardrobe construction, interior work, electrical and plumbing\nwork, installation, setting of kitchen.. These were not a luxury\nbut an essential

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

22,070/-. Against the said return of income, the 2 Panichikandy Mohandasan assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), after making several disallowances, at total income of Rs. 3,73,50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board

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

house on July 1, 1979. At the time of constitution of the firm the partners brought the land and the respective portion of the building thereon towards their share capital and the firm for several 6 PVT Tourist Home years claimed ownership of the building and based on the same, depreciation was claimed in respect of the building

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

22) “1. The submission made is carefully considered. In the present case, according to the registered sale deed, a property consisting of building and the appurtenant land was transferred. The appurtenant land was integral part of the property that is transferred. In the present case, the land is valued at Rs 6,21,000/- out of total consideration

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

22) “1. The submission made is carefully considered. In the present case, according to the registered sale deed, a property consisting of building and the appurtenant land was transferred. The appurtenant land was integral part of the property that is transferred. In the present case, the land is valued at Rs 6,21,000/- out of total consideration

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

22) “1. The submission made is carefully considered. In the present case, according to the registered sale deed, a property consisting of building and the appurtenant land was transferred. The appurtenant land was integral part of the property that is transferred. In the present case, the land is valued at Rs 6,21,000/- out of total consideration