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 POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another in ITA Nos. 69 to 72 and 73 to 75/Coch/ dated 21/02/2019 wherein it was held as follows: 4. Since the facts in all these appeals are identical in nature, we consider the facts as narrated in ITA No.69/Coch/2018. The original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.ws

M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another in ITA Nos. 69 to 72 and 73 to 75/Coch/ dated 21/02/2019 wherein it was held as follows: 4. Since the facts in all these appeals are identical in nature, we consider the facts as narrated in ITA No.69/Coch/2018. The original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.ws

M/S POPULAR FINANCE COMPANY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1,, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties and Investments Ltd. and Another in ITA Nos. 69 to 72 and 73 to 75/Coch/ dated 21/02/2019 wherein it was held as follows: 4. Since the facts in all these appeals are identical in nature, we consider the facts as narrated in ITA No.69/Coch/2018. The original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.ws

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS,, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

DCIT, THIRUVALLA vs. MAR GREGORIOUS MEMORIAL MUTHOOT MEDICAL CENTRE, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

THE ACIT, THIRUVALLA vs. M/S.MUTHOOT PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, KOZHENCHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Properties & Investments, Income-tax, Circle-1, Thiruvalla. Muthoot Building, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. [PAN:AACFM7321G] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri R. Srinivasan, CA Date of hearing 18/12/2018 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2019 I.T.A. Nos. 69-72/Coch/2018 & 73-75/Coch/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These appeals filed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

112), wherein it was held that excise duty collected from customers as part of price of goods will have to be treated as trading receipts and brought to tax following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chowranghee Sales Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (87 ITR 542). According to the Assessing Officer, the service tax is also

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

Section 54F of the Act would be available only in case of purchaser of new residential unit and not for the purpose of modification/renovation of the existing residential house. In the present case it is not disputed that the Assessee had incurred expenses after the purchase of residential property. The claim of the Assessee is that the Assessee had incurred

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)

section (3) thereof, would have no bearing on the merits of the case. The decision by the first appellate authority for that year, as for the current year, cannot bind this Tribunal, so that the matter cannot be regarded as covered, and would require being adjudicated by it on merits. The same would though be relevant and taken into account

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

KAKKOTTAKATH NADUVILAPURAYIL JUNAID,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

house of Shri Rajendran, are now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for the same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed. 13.2 The above finding of the Hon’ble High Court was affirmed