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)

10(37) of the IT Act is not available. 4. Under the circumstances explained in the attached 'Statement of Facts' , even though the transfer was by the way of sale deed it was in effect a compulsory acquisition by the Government 5. It is clear that the appellant did not have any choice but to transfer the land to VISL

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

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

MOHAMED MUSTHAFA KUNNATH CHENGAANA,CALICUT vs. ITO,WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, P.O. Ramanattukara 673633 As orally agreed by the co-ventures, an agreement for the above purchase was executed 20.02.2008 between Sri Koniyan Abdurahiman, on the one part and the appellant on behalf of the Co-ventures. An amount of Rs. 83, 00,000 was paid towards the purchase consideration on various dates from 20.02.2008 to 28.02.2009. 4. Subsequently

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

10(37) are applicable in case of agricultural lands. But in the present case, the property under transfer is a building with the appurtenant agricultural land. Hence the appellant's ground is rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the A.Y 2011-12.” (emphasis, ours) 10.3 Even before us there has been no improvement

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

Section 54F of the Act with respect of expenses aggregating\nto INR.26,94,260/- since the same were incurred to make the\nresidential property habitable. In this regard we find that the\nAssessing Officer had returned the following findings in Paragraph 6\nand 7 of the Assessment Order:\n\"6.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F for investing the\nsales

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

house property and interest. In the said return of income the assessee had declared interest income of his deceased wife from SBI and Canara Bank and claimed TDS credit on the same. Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 13.02.2013, disallowing TDS credit in the name of assessee’s wife. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project