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 54F

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

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)

4 Kumar Madhavanpillai S. 11. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, the issues which require our consideration are detailed as under: i. Whether the benefit

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

4,52,912/-\n: 3,69,000/-\n:53,952./-\n: 26,94,260/-\nThese amounts were spend immediately on purchase of flat\nwere incurred for making the house habitable such as\nwardrobe construction, interior work, electrical and plumbing\nwork, installation, setting of kitchen.. These were not a luxury\nbut an essential part. The proportionate disallowarice of claim\nu/s

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

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

section 54 of the Act at Rs.91,05,096 in respect of construction of a residential house during the relevant year against the capital gain arising to her on sale of 3 pieces of land sold during March, 2013 to November, 2013. The claim was, admitting her mistake inasmuch as the capital asset/s sold was not a residential house, requested

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

house property’, ‘income from business, and ‘capital gains’. The return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 02.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2 Beneesh Kumar 2, 13,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), NC, Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed

SHRI RAVI CHANDY,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 147 r/ws.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) dated 28.3.2022 for assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Explaining the facts of the case, it was submitted by Shri Athul, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the assessment in the first instance was framed on 19.9.2016 (copy on record), denying the assessee deduction u/s.54F, claimed with reference