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

section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential 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

section 54F of the Act by the assessee to the tune of Rs 86,24,063/- being investment in residential house property

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

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

House Property” instead of setting off the same against the income added under section 69 of the Act by placing reliance upon the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that the amendment, whereby the set-off of any loss is denied against the income, inter-alia, referred to in section

PUTHIYA PURAYIL IBRAHIM ,KANNUR vs. DCIT , INTL. TAXATION, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhputhiya Purayil Ibrahim Dcit (International Nisham Mahal, Thana Taxation) Kannur 670012 Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press [Pan: Aafpi0313P] Road Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property so as to be eligible for section 24(b) deduction. 4. We deem it fit appropriate in these

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

24(a) of Rs. 3,00,000/- was granted which resulted in addition of Rs. 45,472/- only. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In respect of addition of Rs. 12,16,356/- of disallowance of interest charges paid to M/s. Sundaram

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

24(a) of Rs. 3,00,000/- was granted which resulted in addition of Rs. 45,472/- only. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In respect of addition of Rs. 12,16,356/- of disallowance of interest charges paid to M/s. Sundaram

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

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

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

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

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

ABDULRASHEED ARACHAMVEETTIL,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2018-19 Abdul Rasheed Arachamveettil Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps V. Thrissur No.2, Rajash Manzil, Chavakkad, Thrissur, Kerala – 680506. Pan : Abnpa4382K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 05.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

24,36,000/-, (ii) Income From House Property of Rs.32,162/- (iii) Income From Business of Rs.(-)7,01,514/-, (iv) Income From Other Sources of Rs.6,69,352/-. The Assessing Officer passed order under section

M/S.ABAD BUILDERS,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2010-11

24,56,056 for the project Blue Chip. 3. During the course of hearing, the AO noticed that the land on which the project Blue Chip has been undertaken is owned by Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. with whom the assessee has entered into an agreement for construction of residential apartments. The AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB

FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016

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

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 80C of the Act to INR.70,462/- as against\neligible claim of INR.1,50,000/- made by the Assessee.\n5.\nBeing aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A) challenging

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