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

MR.ASHOK THANKAPPAN NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT( CENTRAL), COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

SMT.T. LEKHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE PR CIT(CENTRAL) , COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

SMT.T. LEKHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE PR CIT(CENTRAL) , COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

MR.ASHOK THANKAPPAN NAIR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT( CENTRAL), COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

house carried out in the normal course of business by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the directors cannot be construed as loan or advance falling within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence the action of the learned Pr. CIT in invoking the provisions

SMT.THULASI SUBASH,THRIKKAKKARA vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Smt. Thulasi Subash The Income Tax Officer 6/460A, Chellam Ward-1(5), Range 1 Kollamkudimugal Vs. Non Corporate Thrikkakara Kochi Kochi 682021 Pan – Ctaps0080B Appellant Respondent

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.05.2020 for AY 2015-16. 2. Shri Savio George, CA represented the assessee and Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR represented Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the assessee is an individual who along with her siblings sold her ancestral property during

JOY PULLURUTHIKARY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am Shri Joy Pulluruthikary Joseph Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Mullackal House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 Pan – Ahdpj9224H Appellant Respondent

House Income Tax Vs. Cherthala 688524 Arattukulangara Complex Alappuzha A.N. Puram, Alappuzha 688911 PAN – AHDPJ9224H Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Shri V. Roy Jose, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per: George Mathan, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society and NDMC (supra). B.2. However, at the same time, in every case, the assessing authorities would have to apply their minds and scrutinize the records, to determine if, and to what extent, the consideration or amounts charged are significantly higher than the cost and a nominal mark-up. If such is the case, then the receipts would indicate

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society and NDMC (supra). B.2. However, at the same time, in every case, the assessing authorities would have to apply their minds and scrutinize the records, to determine if, and to what extent, the consideration or amounts charged are significantly higher than the cost and a nominal mark-up. If such is the case, then the receipts would indicate

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC), that a show cause notice is not a concomitant of the proceedings u/s. 263. The whole premise of a notice is to put the assessee to notice of the proceedings under section 263 having been initiated against it and, two, afford an opportunity of hearing

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and the balance amount of Rs.5,28,000/- was declared as income from toddy trading activity and therefore the provisions of section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 263 for the Ld.PCIT to carry out necessary verification. The amount

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property and the balance amount of Rs.5,28,000/- was declared as income from toddy trading activity and therefore the provisions of section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 263 for the Ld.PCIT to carry out necessary verification. The amount

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

2. The factual ground of the case is that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running hotel. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 31.10.2013 declaring income of Rs. 67,59,352/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act while allowing the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) and also the appellant claimed depreciation on house property in respect of which income was offered to tax under the head “income from house property”. Accordingly, PCIT issued notice us 263 dated 23.11.2021 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment order should

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 18.3.2015 and 29.3.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-2008, respectively. The background facts of both the cases being same, these are heard together, and are being disposed of pera common, consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos.870& 884 /Coch/2022 (AY 2007-08) Ajit

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a wholly owned company of Government of Kerala. It is engaged in the business of building commercially viable infrastructural facilities for KSRTC. The Return of Income for the AY 2018-19 was filed on 05/10/2018 disclosing an income of Rs. 18,58,61,725/-. However, disclosed book profits