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

section 54 F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) the property in “Shobha City” is bought fully out of the funds of assessee’s husband and the assessee ITA Nos.613, 566/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 14 has invested the sale proceeds of the land in 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

section 54 F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) the property in “Shobha City” is bought fully out of the funds of assessee’s husband and the assessee ITA Nos.613, 566/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 14 has invested the sale proceeds of the land in property

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

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

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

house property incomeare not covered under the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Act as these incomesare not earned by providing credit facilities to its members. ii) The assessee society regularly invested funds not immediately required for business purposes. Interest on such investments, therefore could not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘ profits and gains of business

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” instead of setting off the same against the income added under section 69 of the Act by placing reliance upon the provisions of section 115-BBE(2) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that the amendment, whereby the set-off of any loss is denied against the income, inter-alia, referred to in section

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)

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 i.e. only

M/S PERINGATTU HEALTH FOUNDATION PRIVATE,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

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

6 Peringattu Health Foundation Private Ltd. v. ITO computing it’s AV does not arise. That apart, the law does not admit the argument being made. The reason is simple. As explained hereinbefore, s. 23(1)(c)is applicable only in case of actual letting of a property or a part of the property. It is thus only where

K P MUHAMMED ALI,CALICUT vs. ITO ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [PAN:AGNPM9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of order dated 25.11.2022 by the Commissioner

SYEDALI EBRAHIM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property income. E. The findings of the lower authorities to the extent that the loan was taken by Rukkiya Amma as per the information from the bank under section 133(6

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

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

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

6)] inasmuch as it amounts to a double relief, stands disapproved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarathi Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC), so that no disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first

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

6)] inasmuch as it amounts to a double relief, stands disapproved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarathi Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC), so that no disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first

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

6)] inasmuch as it amounts to a double relief, stands disapproved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarathi Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC), so that no disallowance thereof would obtain for years prior to AY 2015-2016. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Taking the first

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 19.12.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal is delayed by 26 days. The accompanying affidavit by the assessee’s spouse, her legal representative (LR), not seriously contested by the Revenue, suitably explains the delay. Further, Shri Kannan, the learned counsel for the assessee

A K SANTHOSH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. In respect of addition of Rs. 12,16,356/- of disallowance of interest charges paid to M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas u/s 40(a)(ia), the assessee vide letter dated 16.03.2016 informed the AO that certificate in Form