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

3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54,18,340/ and claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the investment made in 'Skyline Infinity' apartment, Thrissur. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143 (2) dated

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

3. the AY 2015-16 on 24-8-2016 admitting a total income of Rs.54,18,340/ and claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the investment made in 'Skyline Infinity' apartment, Thrissur. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143 (2) dated

LOVE INDIA MINISTRIES,THIRUVALLA vs. THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

LAST HOUR MINISTRY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

M/S.BELIEVERS EASTERN CHURCH,THIRUVALLA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

housing project, education to poor children, community development etc. The assessee filed its returns of income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and the same was allowed by the AO. The search and seizure operations u/s. 132 of the Act were conducted on 05/11/2020 in the premises of appellant-society. It was stated that when the search

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.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.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

JOY PULLURUTHIKARY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am Shri Joy Pulluruthikary Joseph Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Mullackal House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 Pan – Ahdpj9224H Appellant Respondent

House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 PAN – AHDPJ9224H Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Shri V. Roy Jose, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per: George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

143(3). Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 54F based on the fact that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs.98,20,984 within 3 years

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

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

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

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

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