SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, treated the aforesaid income as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and taxed the same under the provisions of section 115-BBE. Further, the AO held that the loss under the head “House Property

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 14.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2014-2015. 2. The appeal, filed on 09.01.2023, is delayed by 148 days. It is accompanied by a sworn affidavit of even date by Dr. Thampi Mathew, Executive Director and Principal Officer, also signing the appeal memo before the first appellate authority

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

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANATHAVADY vs. ITO,WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

BABU CHANDRATHIL GEORGE,PALARIVATTOM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD-1 (1), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House v. Non-Corp.Ward -1(1) Civil Line Road Cochin. Palarivattom Ernakulam – 682 025. PAN :AGZPG7680D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :24.03.2025 Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12/02/2024, passed under section

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property income. E. The findings of the lower authorities to the extent that the loan was taken by Rukkiya Amma as per the information from the bank under section 133(6) is factually incorrect, as the bank had sanctioned the loan to the appellant and has issued a confirmation letter to this effect. F. The appellant craves

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

143(3) of the Act vide\nAssessment Order, dated 10/12/2018. The Assessing Officer\nrestricted the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F\nof the Act to INR.2,03,79,316/- as against INR.2,24,25,368/-\nclaimed by the Assessee in the return of income. Further the\nAssessing Officer also restricted the deduction claimed by the\nAssessee under Section

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the relevant years in first appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [‘CIT(A)’ for short], vide his separate orders of even date (30.5.2014). The appeals raising the same issues; also decided likewise, were heard together, and are being disposed per a common order