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

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

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 3 Sri.Reji Krishnan. (ii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) have failed to apply the provisions of Section 54F correctly. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has disallowed Exemption claimed u/s 54F on the sale or 2 separate agricultural lands to invest in 2 separate individual houses

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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

54F In respect of the new house property purchased 75,00,000 x 2787338/27495000) Rs. 7,60,321 Taxable Capital Gains Rs. 20,27,017 Gross Total Income (-) Rs. 2,65,315/- Net Taxable income NIL T.D.S. Rs.24,000 Tax refundable Rs. 24,000 5.3 The return was accompanied by a Profit and Loss A/c. and Balance Sheet in respect

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)

3 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 6. Based on the above observation, the AO treated the land value and value of one of property as long term capital assets and accordingly long-term capital gain was computed on the same after index cost of acquisition and further provided exemption under section 54 of the Act on account of investment in residential property

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

3 raised by the Assessee pertain to denial of\ndeduction as claimed by the Assessee under Section 54F of the Act\nin respect of additional cost of INR.26,94,260/- incurred by the\nAssessee after the purchase of the residential property. On perusal\nof the orders passed by the authorities below we find that the\nAssessee had contended that

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

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 for his residence

SMT.HALIMA ZUBAIR,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

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

section 54F for the amount invested in this property.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is a dealer in tiles and sanitary items. She is also commission agent of seafood. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the return of income was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.26

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein i.e., section 139(4), then section 54F(4) is not all attracted and therefore, the contention that the assessee has not deposited the amount in the bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction

RAPHAEL JOHN (DECEASED),THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the said amendment, it is clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units as in the present case where the assessee has got five residential flats. We may also mention here that all the Authorities below have clearly understood that the agreement signed

TRESA JOLLY,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

section 80C on the grounds that the deduction was not claimed in the original return and the revised return was beyond the time under 139(5) while taking income as per revised return. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that Your appellant had made the claim before the completion of assessment by filing a return ofincome

PANATTU URUMIS CHACKO,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

house S.A No.217/Coch/2023 Page 2 of 4 was not constructed within 3 years. The view taken by the AO was subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR before us fairly admitted there was a delay in obtaining