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,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

ELINJIPPURATH VELAYUDHAN KOCHUMON,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmielinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon The Income Tax Officer -2(2) Elinjipurath House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [Pan:Asnpk4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [PAN:ASNPK4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Dileep Balachandran, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 21.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,COCHIN 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

ABC SALES CORPORATION,KASARAGOD 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

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

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