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

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

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)

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

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

250 Kakkanad 19,35,80,550 5. The said lands were situated in Thrikkakara Panchayat. The area of Thrikkakara Panchayat was notified area during the period from 1984 to 1994, but denotified in the year 1994. The appellant purchased adjacent pieces of land from 8 different parties during F.Y. 2006-07. These lands were sold to different parties

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

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

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2. The learned first appellate authority erred in holding that the income offered for assessment during the previous year ended 31/03/2014, is liable to be taxed under section 115 BBE of the Act, ignoring the loss relating to house property. The appellant humbly submit that the provisions relating to not granting the los relating to house property if income

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANATHAVADY vs. ITO,WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2. The learned first appellate authority erred in holding that the income offered for assessment during the previous year ended 31/03/2014, is liable to be taxed under section 115 BBE of the Act, ignoring the loss relating to house property. The appellant humbly submit that the provisions relating to not granting the los relating to house property if income

BABU CHANDRATHIL GEORGE,PALARIVATTOM vs. ITO, NON-CORP WARD-1 (1), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House v. Non-Corp.Ward -1(1) Civil Line Road Cochin. Palarivattom Ernakulam – 682 025. PAN :AGZPG7680D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :24.03.2025 Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM : 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12/02/2024, passed under section

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

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR 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

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

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KANNUR 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

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