THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. ITA Nos.192-193/Coch/2019 (AY 2012-2013 & 2015-16) Asst. CIT v. Knowell Realtors India (P.) Ltd. The Law 4.1 Income under the Act is to be assessed under any of the 6 (now 5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property

THE ACIT, CORP CIRCLE-1(2), KOCHI vs. M/S.KNOWELL REALTORS INDIA P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. ITA Nos.192-193/Coch/2019 (AY 2012-2013 & 2015-16) Asst. CIT v. Knowell Realtors India (P.) Ltd. The Law 4.1 Income under the Act is to be assessed under any of the 6 (now 5) heads of income. Section 22 and 28 concern income from house property

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

house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section 54F is not satisfied and accordingly it was proposed to disallow the entire claim under section 54F. 4. The assessee filed reply dated 29-8-2017 to the notice stating that the conditions under section 54F is satisfied and that the entire payments towards

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

house (apartment in Sobha City), other than the New Asset and therefore the conditions under section 54F is not satisfied and accordingly it was proposed to disallow the entire claim under section 54F. 4. The assessee filed reply dated 29-8-2017 to the notice stating that the conditions under section 54F is satisfied and that the entire payments towards

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [PAN: AFOPJ8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

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

4) of the Act by the firm to Shri Poonghat Shrinivas who acquired the absolute right over the building. However, there is no question of reference u/s. 55A on the reason that the fair market value is the actual sales consideration received by the assessee which is already determined between the partners.” 6. The Tribunal also rejected the contention

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

4) is attracted only to a case where the sale consideration is not utilized either for purchase or for construction of a residential house. It has no application to a case where the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in Section

SMT.MERCY GEORGE L/H OF SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, , KOTTAYAM

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

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

section 54F(4) of the I.T.Act. 6.1 The issue that arises for our consideration was decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of ITO v. K.C.Gopalan (supra). The Hon’ble High Court had observed that the assessee has to construct / purchase a new house property

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

House Property” was carried forward. 4. Against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee

M/S.OBERON EDIFICES & ESTATES P. LTD,,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT,, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

house property, the Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the same as profit and gains of business on a lower base in I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act which renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he gave the above directions to the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions

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)

property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. The ld. AR also contended that cost of improvement was incurred by the assessee

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, 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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that

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

4) to charge capital gains in such cases were introduced in section 45 by Finance Act 1987 w.e.f 01/04/1988. As per clause (3) of section 45 profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital asset to the firm on 14/08/1998 is chargeable to tax. It was submitted that it was specifically stated in the said section that