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

80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 1,53,59,677/-.However on the one hand the AO treated the return filed against notice u/s 148 as non-est and on the other hand issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 21.03.2022. The AO also issued 3 nos. of notices

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

80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs. 1,53,59,677/-.However on the one hand the AO treated the return filed against notice u/s 148 as non-est and on the other hand issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 21.03.2022. The AO also issued 3 nos. of notices

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)

property. Therefore, the same is eligible for deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. It was also contended by the learned AR that the depreciable assets, if the period of holding exceeds 36 months, are also eligible for such deduction under section 50/54F of the Act. The ld. AR also contended that cost of improvement was incurred by the assessee

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

80 acres, at Kakkanad, District Ernakulam, belonging to Kinfra was transferred to the assessee-society on 18.9.2003. Built-up space for IT and ITES was to be set-up thereat, targeted at 7.5 lakh sq.ft. annually for the first two years, increasing upto an additional 15 lakh sq.ft. per annum for the next three years. The additional capacity was envisaged

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

80 acres, at Kakkanad, District Ernakulam, belonging to Kinfra was transferred to the assessee-society on 18.9.2003. Built-up space for IT and ITES was to be set-up thereat, targeted at 7.5 lakh sq.ft. annually for the first two years, increasing upto an additional 15 lakh sq.ft. per annum for the next three years. The additional capacity was envisaged

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

80 acres, at Kakkanad, District Ernakulam, belonging to Kinfra was transferred to the assessee-society on 18.9.2003. Built-up space for IT and ITES was to be set-up thereat, targeted at 7.5 lakh sq.ft. annually for the first two years, increasing upto an additional 15 lakh sq.ft. per annum for the next three years. The additional capacity was envisaged

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

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

housing society; property chargeable under section 22. (2) An urban consumer society; (3) A society carrying on transport business; (4) A society engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees) 29. From the Tabular form presented above, it may be clear

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

80,22,070/-. Against the said return of income, the 2 Panichikandy Mohandasan assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), after making several disallowances, at total income of Rs. 3,73,50,420/-. 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

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

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

80,000/- ii. Income from house property – Rs.28,000/- iii. Business loss – Rs.35,52,891/- iv. Long term capital loss – Rs.22,14,862/- v. Short term capital gain – Rs.7,87,187/- vi. Income from other sources – Rs.2,60,601/-. 3. During the course of Assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has sold 1.66 acres of land for a consideration

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

Section 153C of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not on this aspect of the matter. As already excerpted, the Tribunal examined yet another circumstance and recorded a finding in the common order impugned in the appeal. We are pursuaded with the argument of Adv. Navneeth N. Nath that the Tribunal

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

80,397/-\n: 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

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 29.12.2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. ITA Nos. 54& 84/Coch/2012 (AY: 2008-09) P.C. Jose v. Dy CIT / Dy. CIT v. P.C. Jose Ex-parte Order 2. The appeals were heard at length on 10.08.2023, covering all the issues, including the principal one, being the assessment

ACIT, COCHIN vs. SRI.P.C.JOSE, COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

80,550/-. In the year of purchase of these lands, the appellant had shown the purchase consideration as advance and shown investment in the property under the head “loans and advances”. It was claimed that the lands sold were agricultural both at the time of purchase and as well as sale and the land was not situated within the notified