SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years in return of income filed for current year in the garb of regular business income or income from other sources and paying much less taxes and that too without paying any penalty also. This was also intended to prevent such

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

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

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

properties ABROAD during the relevant assessment year. The said finding of the CIT (Appeal) to disallow the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is illegal, totally unsustainable and perverse. 8. The CIT (Appeals) has thoroughly failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. The assessee is a Non-Resident, filed her return of Income

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

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

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

JAMES KUDAKUTHIYIL CHACKO,KERALA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CRICLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 James Kudakuthiyil Chacko, Dcit, Vs. Kbc Enclaves, International Taxation Circle, Laikadu, Perunna P.O. Trivandrum. Changanacherry, Kerala – 686 102. Pan :Ajbpc 2186 R Assessee Respondent

69 of the Act or in the alternative direct consideration of such sums only as part of sale consideration received on the sale of the property, under the head Long-term Capital Gains. Page 3 of 8 The assessee is an individual. Assessee filed the return of 3. income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring the following income

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,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

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

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

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

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

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

ABDULRASHEED ARACHAMVEETTIL,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2018-19 Abdul Rasheed Arachamveettil Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps V. Thrissur No.2, Rajash Manzil, Chavakkad, Thrissur, Kerala – 680506. Pan : Abnpa4382K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 05.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

House Property of Rs.32,162/- (iii) Income From Business of Rs.(-)7,01,514/-, (iv) Income From Other Sources of Rs.6,69,352/-. The Assessing Officer passed order under section

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

69,000\n53,952\n4,52,912\n31,29,112\n7.1.\nOut of the above expenses, the Assessee had claimed deduction\nunder 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