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

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

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

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

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

26,48,290/- during the year. 4.3 The AOwhile passing theassessment order observed as follows- ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 12 of 19 i) The interest earned on balance in savings accounts, interest on term deposits, interest on IT Refund as well as house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section

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

26,48,290/- during the year. 4.3 The AOwhile passing theassessment order observed as follows- ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 12 of 19 i) The interest earned on balance in savings accounts, interest on term deposits, interest on IT Refund as well as house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [PAN:AGNPM9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of order dated 25.11.2022 by the Commissioner

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

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

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 19.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal is delayed by 26 days. The accompanying affidavit by the assessee’s spouse, her legal representative (LR), not seriously contested by the Revenue, suitably explains the delay. Further, Shri Kannan, the learned counsel for the assessee

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

26,420/-. 3. Subsequently, on examination of the assessment records, the learned PCIT opined that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the reason that the AO had failed to enquire about the applicability of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act while allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and also

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

Section 143(3) of the Act for the\n Assessment Year 2016-2017.\n2.\nThe present appeal was delayed by 86 days. In the application\nseeking condonation of delay it has been stated that the delay was\ninadvertently caused on account of the impugned order having been\nreceived in the spam folder. The Assessee only got knowledge of the\nimpugned

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

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

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

section (3) thereof, would have no bearing on the merits of the case. The decision by the first appellate authority for that year, as for the current year, cannot bind this Tribunal, so that the matter cannot be regarded as covered, and would require being adjudicated by it on merits. The same would though be relevant and taken into account

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [PAN: APJPC6676G] vs. DCIT (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant by: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CA Respondent by: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated