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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 154 of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the denial

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Assessee has also SA No. 79/COCH/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 filed Stay Application No.79/Coch/2025 in ITA No.571/Coch/2025

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

250 of the IT Act, 1961 is opposed to law and\ncontrary to the facts of the case and against equity and\nprinciples of natural justice.\n2.\nYour appellant purchased a flat for Rs.2,20,86,740/- and also\nincurred additional expenses of Rs.31,29,112/- for installing\nsome basic facilities to make the house habitable. Even\nthough the total

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

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these three appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Now first, we take the appeal in ITA No.802/Coch/2024 for the AY 2012-13 as the lead case. The decision

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these three appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Now first, we take the appeal in ITA No.802/Coch/2024 for the AY 2012-13 as the lead case. The decision

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue in all these three appeals is common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Now first, we take the appeal in ITA No.802/Coch/2024 for the AY 2012-13 as the lead case. The decision

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte. 2. Learned Sr. D.R. vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly invoked section 24(b) interest claim disallowance in the course of assessment dated 19.12.2017 as upheld

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

250, claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act at Rs.91,05,096 in respect of construction of a residential house during the relevant year against the capital gain arising to her on sale of 3 pieces of land sold during March, 2013 to November, 2013. The claim was, admitting her mistake inasmuch as the capital asset/s sold

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)

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 (Appeals) has erred in not giving credit to IDS of State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.2,08,176/- and Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.15

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’).

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, although notices were served from the registry to the assessee. We cannot keep this appeal pending for inordinate delay for adjudication; therefore, we feel it necessary to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record

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

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

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL IRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

250 of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made conclusions in the nature of Ipse Dixit that too without the support of discernible reasons and hence the appellate order stands to be set aside. This view is supported by the decision contained in Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj