THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

SREENI PARAMESWARAN,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassreeni Parameswaran Asst. Cit, 7/42 – B5, Mystic Bells Corporate Circle- 2(1) Villa No. 1, Eroor Desom Kochi Nadama Village Vs. Ernakulam 682308 [Pan: Bahps6202C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. K. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Order Dated 20.01.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac), Dismissing His Appeal Contesting His Assessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Of The Addition By Way Of Deemed Dividend U/S. 2(22)(E) Of The Act For Rs. 62,44,215,Since Confirmed In The First Appeal.

property sold during the current year being a Villa. Thus, though a matter of clarification/verification, would not have any implication for our purpose inasmuch as the balance in this account as at the beginning of the year (01.04.2010) is reckoned at nil. Page 4 ITANo. 186/Coch/2023 (AY 2011-12) Sreeni Parameswaran vs. Asst. CIT 4.5 The debits for the current

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: These are two Appeals by the Revenue agitating the appellate order dated 19.12.2018 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi ‘(CIT(A)’), partly allowing the assessee’s appeals contesting it’s assessments under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter), dated 31.07.2017 and 08.12.2017 for assessment years

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: These are two Appeals by the Revenue agitating the appellate order dated 19.12.2018 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi ‘(CIT(A)’), partly allowing the assessee’s appeals contesting it’s assessments under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter), dated 31.07.2017 and 08.12.2017 for assessment 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

E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 05.12.2023 vide DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457420(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457386(1) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since

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

E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 05.12.2023 vide DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457420(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457386(1) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition Rs. 1,45,22,651/- under the head capital

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

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

section 2(14) have no application to the facts of present case. P.C. Jose 22. Next we proceed to examine the nature of the land based on the material on record. Undisputedly, the lands were classified as agricultural lands in the Revenue records of the state government. There is no dispute on this aspect. The assessee also discharged the onus

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)

E R Per: George George K., J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 25.05.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Commissioner

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: ACGPJ4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him) Revenue by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM These are cross

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

e-mail. The appellant became aware of the impugned order; there being no representation before the first appellate authority, and for the same reason, on the same being downloaded by the tax consultant. The ld. Sr. DR did not rebut any of the said contentions, even as opting out of the transmission on email (in Form 35) is a matter

SANATANA DHARMA VIDYASALA,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

SANATANA DHARMA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the 14 ITA.Nos.278 & 279/COCH./2024 mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This is an appeal restored by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.07.2024 in ITA No. 203 of 2019 with the following directions: - “9. Thus, while we uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the charge of Short Term Capital Gains, in the instant case, has to be as mandated