M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

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

house property. We are conscious, we may clarify, that the ld. CIT(A) has, in computing the % age of total consideration ascribed to land, being in fact at 63%, wrongly worked it at 37%, which is in fact for building. The same would not, however, in any manner, impact the final conclusion, which is based on, firstly, the assessee

SINI NOUSHAD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 15.02.2023. The assessee has qua the instant appeal also filed a stay application. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI vs. SAMAIRA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle - 2, Ernakulam .......... Appellant Vs. Samaira Properties Pvt. Ltd .......... Respondent Samaira House, Kra-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [Pan: Abbcs6500L] Assessee By: Shri Anoop V.Francis, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025

House, KRA-D6, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003 [PAN: ABBCS6500L] Assessee by: Shri Anoop V.Francis, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi

P. K JAYAPRAKASAN,VALAPPAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1, GURUVAYUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Panakkal Kumaran Jayaprakasan Panakkal House Valappad Beach Valapad Cit(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala Pan No : Afrpj2700A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : N O N E Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Thrissur Dated 12.08.2020 For The Ay 2015- 16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 2 Of 5 Mr. P.K. Jayaprakasan, Thrissur Page 3 Of 5

House Valappad Beach Valapad CIT(A) Vs. Thrissur 680 567 Thrissur Kerala PAN NO : AFRPJ2700A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against

SMT.JALAJA NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADIT(INV), TRIVANDRUM

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

Section 256(1) (c) further stipulates that in any other case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders in the appeal as he think fit. 17. In this connection, the appellant also respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deal with the issue regarding the power of the Appellate Authority in the leading judgment in the case

SMT.JALAJA NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADIT(INV), TRIVANDRUM

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

Section 256(1) (c) further stipulates that in any other case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders in the appeal as he think fit. 17. In this connection, the appellant also respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deal with the issue regarding the power of the Appellate Authority in the leading judgment in the case

SMT.JALAJA NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADIT(INV), TRIVANDRUM

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

Section 256(1) (c) further stipulates that in any other case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders in the appeal as he think fit. 17. In this connection, the appellant also respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deal with the issue regarding the power of the Appellate Authority in the leading judgment in the case