DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained in the non-returning thereof: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (1) to (13)....... (14) "capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

220(2) of the Act pertaining to the relevant previous year has to be computed on standalone basis because of the fact that even if we hold the learned Assessing Officer has not given effect to any other assessment years order by The South Indian Bank Ltd. the concerned appellate authority, would not ispo facto result in assessee’s claim

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

GEORGE STANLEY,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2014-2015, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 20.12.2021. 2. The appeal, filed on 11.05.2022, after accounting for the blanket saving on account of Covid by the Hon’ble Apex Court