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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

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

reopen the assessment proceedings to assess the full sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in place of Rs.2,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. 5.6 The Assessing Officer, after re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee for hearing the assessee’s case. By the Assessing Officer

M/S.TRIO PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

reopening done u/s. 147 of the Act. Though, it has not been stated in as many words, a reading of the assessment order clearly indicate that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated since assessee in its return had not shown the capital gains arising to it, on the alleged transfer of property for development

SONIYA DAVID LATHIKA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Soniya David Lathika The Ito, Ward-2(3) S. S. Nivas, Vizhinjam, Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar, Vs. Mukkola, Venganoor, Trivandrum-4 Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan/Gir No. Ajqpl 8228 A (Assessee) : (Respondent)

transfer the appellant suffered two disadvantages. One, she did not get the market price obtainable for urban land and two, she became liable to capital gains tax. The narration in the sale deed that if she got a better price than what she would have got from compulsory acquisition she would execute sale deed directly with VISL' is unworthy

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income but by taking note of the undisclosed income if any, unearthed during the search. The expression “unearthed during the search” is quite significant to denote that in respect of completed or non- pending assessment, the Assessing Officer albeit duty bound to assess or resssess the total income but if there is scope

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

price of Rs. 2.24 lacs per cent within 3 years of the Agreement dated 03/1/2007, justifying the same. The return of the capital gain by two sellers is of no consequence; the same being only be give effect to the benami transitions (refer: ITO v. Rattan Lal [1984] 145 ITR 183 (SC); Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

SHRI.VISWANATHA MANOJ KUMAR,KOCHI vs. THE PR.CIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

price fixed by the State Government for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, was at Rs.215.21 lakhs, i.e., at Rs.76.03 lacs higher. The provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, reading as under, was thus attracted, applicability of which had not been examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in assessment: Income from other sources

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

reopen finalised assessments prior to the assessment year beginning on April 1, 2001. The expression "in relation to" does not have any embedded object. It simply means "in connection with" or "pertains to". If the expenditure in question has a relation or connection with or pertains to exempt income it cannot be allowed as a deduction even if it qualifies

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

reopen finalised assessments prior to the assessment year beginning on April 1, 2001. The expression "in relation to" does not have any embedded object. It simply means "in connection with" or "pertains to". If the expenditure in question has a relation or connection with or pertains to exempt income it cannot be allowed as a deduction even if it qualifies

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

reopen finalised assessments prior to the assessment year beginning on April 1, 2001. The expression "in relation to" does not have any embedded object. It simply means "in connection with" or "pertains to". If the expenditure in question has a relation or connection with or pertains to exempt income it cannot be allowed as a deduction even if it qualifies

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

reopen finalised assessments prior to the assessment year beginning on April 1, 2001. The expression "in relation to" does not have any embedded object. It simply means "in connection with" or "pertains to". If the expenditure in question has a relation or connection with or pertains to exempt income it cannot be allowed as a deduction even if it qualifies

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

price. True, the Revenue has acted mechanically in the matter, which explains the deletion of the disallowance by us, i.e., in principle. However, while for the other expenditure the AO could and, rather, ought to have procured the material to justify the invocation of the provision, for this expenditure all the relevant material is in possession of the assessee