THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,017/-. I.T.A. Nos.605/Coch/2005 & others 10.2 The contention of the Ld. AR is that the statement recorded by DDI(Inv.- II), Ernakulam on 23/04/1999 u/s. 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value as it is not supported by any corroborative material. Under section 131 of the Act, the income tax authority is empowered to examine on oath. Section

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

house property. As such, the assessee cannot have any grievance and is entitled to only deduction u/s. 24 of the I.T. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.279/Coch/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed. Thus, the appeals of the assessee in ITA I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . Nos.277 & 278/Coch/2019 for the assessment year

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

27 and 28 of the paper books, which were not disputed by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, we hold that the 50% cost of the improvement is eligible for indexation cost while calculating the capital gain. 15. The next controversy arises whether the gain arising on the sale of depreciable assessed is eligible for exemption under section 54/54F

SMT.MITHRA PAUL,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-1, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

27,855 Less: Interest on loan taken for the house property from ICICl Bank 7,97,115 Income (-) 6,69,260 Since the net income from the house property was a loss, I have not included the same in the return. 2. I am enclosing a confirmation letter dated 23-08-2016 from my sister regarding gift

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

M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

27 (P & H) CIT vs. Citi Bank N. A (2003) 261 ITR 570 (Born) 2. The assessee is a Government of Kerala Public Sector undertaking manufacturing cattle feeds. An inspection was conducted on 22.01.2016 to verify the TDS compliance. Accordingly, the ITO(TDS) issued a show cause notice for lesser deduction of tax regarding certain employees with regard to housing

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

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

house property income. E. The findings of the lower authorities to the extent that the loan was taken by Rukkiya Amma as per the information from the bank under section 133(6) is factually incorrect, as the bank had sanctioned the loan to the appellant and has issued a confirmation letter to this effect. F. The appellant craves

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

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

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

House Property (as returned) :Rs.42,000 Income from business Loss admitted as per return (-):Rs. 7,323 Add: Undisclosed income (i) From Liquor Sales as discussed in para 7.1 Rs.1,78,19,693 (ii) From Restaurant Sales as discussed in para 7.2 to 7.4Rs. 17,56,400 (iii) From sale of cigarettes as discussed in para