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

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 property in Sobha City is treated as joint investment and if only 50% of the total investment is allowed in the hands of assessee's husband, then 50% balance of the total investment may be allowed in the hands of the assesse. However, the assessing officer without considering, the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the investment

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 property in Sobha City is treated as joint investment and if only 50% of the total investment is allowed in the hands of assessee's husband, then 50% balance of the total investment may be allowed in the hands of the assesse. However, the assessing officer without considering, the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the investment

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

50,000 aggregating Rs.2,00,000/- or more, with a Banking company ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 11 of 19 4.1 Subsequent to reason recorded, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and in response, the assessee could filed its return of income only on 21.02.2022 due to glitches

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

50,000 aggregating Rs.2,00,000/- or more, with a Banking company ITA Nos.408 & 409/Coch/2024 Thrissur District Police Cooperative Society Ltd., Thrissur Page 11 of 19 4.1 Subsequent to reason recorded, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021 and in response, the assessee could filed its return of income only on 21.02.2022 due to glitches

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” against the addition 2 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. made under section 69 of the Act by applying the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is one of the partners of the building named “Double Seven Plaza

PUTHIRI VINCENT THOMAS ,THODUPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2010-11 Puthiri Vincent Thomas .......... Appellant Xxiii/249 A, Puthiri House Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki 685584 [Pan: Agwpv7187P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

house property’ assessed 50% of income from property. Thus he made addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that the entire property was settled to two sons and daughter- in-law. The share of income derived from this was offered to tax in the hands of the two sons

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)

50 Lakh. Thereafter the AO found, as per the municipal property tax receipt, out of 4 TC number only property being TC No. 25/1684/(4)was residential property and remaining were commercial properties. The AO also found that the building were shown as business assets in balance sheet for which depreciation was claimed, thus the same qualifies for short term

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

Section 54F and all sales can be reinvested only 1 House Property, which is totally opposed to the established law. (vi) Further the case laws relied upon by the AO/CIT(A) are completely different from theAppellant's case and relate to a single sale of Long Term Capital Asset. In the Appellant': case there are 2 separate transactions of sale

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

KALLULLATHIL THAZHATHEVEETIL NASIR,MANATHAVADY vs. ITO,WARD-2, KALPETTA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

house property if income is liable to tax under section 115BBE, is not applicable for the year under reference, as the said restriction came into force by Finance Act 2016 read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered

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

Section 54F of the Act with respect of expenses aggregating\nto INR.26,94,260/- since the same were incurred to make the\nresidential property habitable. In this regard we find that the\nAssessing Officer had returned the following findings in Paragraph 6\nand 7 of the Assessment Order:\n\"6.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F for investing the\nsales

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

50,420/-. 3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). disallowance of depreciation of plant and machinery of Rs. 10,64,649/-, disallowance of interest

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading thereof would indicate how the legislature contemplates that come chargeable under head "capital gains" has to be computed. The mode of computation is laid down by section 48, whereas

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading thereof would indicate how the legislature contemplates that come chargeable under head "capital gains" has to be computed. The mode of computation is laid down by section 48, whereas

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading thereof would indicate how the legislature contemplates that come chargeable under head "capital gains" has to be computed. The mode of computation is laid down by section 48, whereas

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading thereof would indicate how the legislature contemplates that come chargeable under head "capital gains" has to be computed. The mode of computation is laid down by section 48, whereas

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

property of the assessee on (a) the consolidation and division of all or any of the share capital of the company into shares of larger amount** ** ** 11.6 A bare reading thereof would indicate how the legislature contemplates that come chargeable under head "capital gains" has to be computed. The mode of computation is laid down by section 48, whereas

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

section 80P(2) is actually divided into six parts, categorised under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). Each one of these clauses deal with different types of co-operative societies engaged in different types of activities. The benefit made available to each one of them is also different from the other. Therefore, it may be useful to present