REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

property is also eligible for deduction u/s.54F of the Act and the 4 Sri.Reji Krishnan. other expenses incurred in respect of the transactions are also reasonable and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We heard the arguments of both sides

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

MOHAMMED KUTTY PUDUKKUDI,MALAPPURAM vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

House, Ponmundam P.O. (via) Tirur 676106 [PAN: AFEPP4646J] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

BINDHU THOTTUNGAL GEORGE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 69 of the Act. In the present case the assessee had filed cash flow statement showing the source for the cost of construction of the house property. There is no material on record to disbelieve the explanation offered in support of the source for the cost of construction of the property. The AO cannot make additions merely based

MR. PREM MUKUNDAN ,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. (Judicial Member), Ms. Padmavathy S. (Accountant Member)

house property and interest. In the said return of income the assessee had declared interest income of his deceased wife from SBI and Canara Bank and claimed TDS credit on the same. Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 13.02.2013, disallowing TDS credit in the name of assessee’s wife. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before

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

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2014-2015, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 20.12.2021. 2. The appeal, filed on 11.05.2022, after accounting for the blanket saving on account of Covid by the Hon’ble Apex Court

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

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

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained in the non-returning thereof: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (1) to (13)....... (14) "capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected