ECO VISION PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR, KERALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2020-21 Eco Vision Properties Pvt Ltd Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps, V. Thirissur Edattukaran House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. Pan : Aadce2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vipin K K, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, By The Cpc, Bengaluru & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), For The Assessment Year 2020–21 Vide Order Dated 28.11.2024. 2. The Primary Grievance Of The Assessee Is The Enhancement Of The Tax Rate From 25% To 30% By The Cpc Under Section 154, Despite The Assessee Being Otherwise Eligible For The Lower Tax Rate In Terms Of The Finance Act, 2019. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In Business & Had Filed Its Return Of Income

House, Varandarapilly, Thrissur, Kerala- 680303. PAN : AADCE2329J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vipin K K, CA Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR. Date of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed under Section 154 of the 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

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

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

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

THE DCIT, CALICUT vs. M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri George George K, Jm & Manjunath. G, Am The Dy Commr Of Income Tax Vs M/S Kunhitharuvai Memorial Central Circle Charitable Trust Kozhikode No.1 Mcc Cross Road Kozhikode 673 001 ( Appellant) (Respondent)

property of the trust or the institution, is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred in sub. Section (3), then the trust is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I T Act. Similarly, provisions of sec. 164(2) states that in a case where the whole or any part of the relevant

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

154) Did the purchaser by any act subsequent to the purchase improve the quality of the commodity purchased and thereby made it more readily resalable?. “the Assessing Officer has not examined whether the properties purchased were lying contiguously or there was any connection between the intended purchaser in the agreement, the respondent- assessee and the ultimate purchaser of the lands

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

154) Did the purchaser by any act subsequent to the purchase improve the quality of the commodity purchased and thereby made it more readily resalable?. “the Assessing Officer has not examined whether the properties purchased were lying contiguously or there was any connection between the intended purchaser in the agreement, the respondent- assessee and the ultimate purchaser of the lands

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

154) Did the purchaser by any act subsequent to the purchase improve the quality of the commodity purchased and thereby made it more readily resalable?. “the Assessing Officer has not examined whether the properties purchased were lying contiguously or there was any connection between the intended purchaser in the agreement, the respondent- assessee and the ultimate purchaser of the lands

THE ACIT, TRICHUR vs. SRI.ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

154) Did the purchaser by any act subsequent to the purchase improve the quality of the commodity purchased and thereby made it more readily resalable?. “the Assessing Officer has not examined whether the properties purchased were lying contiguously or there was any connection between the intended purchaser in the agreement, the respondent- assessee and the ultimate purchaser of the lands

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), COCHIN vs. SRI. BABU CHANDRATHIL GEORGE, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the foregoing terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalthe Income Tax Officer Babu Chandrathil George Non Corporate Ward 1(1) 32/1173 Chandrathil House Kochi Vs. Civle Line Road, Palarivattom Kochi 682025 [Pan: Agzpg7680D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Kochi vs. Civle Line Road, Palarivattom Kochi 682025 [PAN: AGZPG7680D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Respondent by: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Date of Hearing: 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order dated 30.11.2012 by the Commissioner

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

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

House Vs. Ward 1(3) Kandanisseri Trichur. Thrissur – 680 102. PAN : AAICS5338J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Bomi Daruwala, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2019 Date of Hearing : 15.10.2019 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order dated 29.03.2019 passed

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

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA 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