300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and (i) Guardian Industries Corpn v. Assistant Director of Income-tax

7 DTR 594High Court#21263 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and (i) Guardian Industries Corpn v. Assistant Director of Income-tax

M/S High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi

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

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…industan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT – 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and (i) Guardian Industries Corpn. vs. Assistant Director of Income6-tax – 7 DTR 594 (Del.). are also supports the plea of the assessee. The accrual has been dealt with in the relied judgments. Hence, under the given set of facts and circumstances, we by relying on the above decisions set aside the orders of the authorities and allow this ground of the assessee as it cannot be treated as income for the year relevant under appeal.”…

High Range Foods Pvt Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 41(1)

…Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT – 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and (i) Guardian Industries Corpn. vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax – 7 DTR 594 (Del.). are also supports the plea of the assessee. The accrual has been dealt with in the relied judgments. Hence, under the given set of facts and circumstances, we by relying on the above decisions set aside the orders of the authorities and allow this ground of the assessee as it cannot be treated as income for the year relevant under appeal.”…

M/S.Combined Foods P. Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 155/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Combined Foods Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax, Kochi-1. 28/3030, Elamkulam, Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9366N] Assessee-Appellant Revenue-Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)

…velopment Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT – 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and I.T.A. No.155 /Coch/2017 (i) Guardian Industries Corpn. vs. Assistant Director of Income- tax – 7 DTR 594 (Del.). are also supports the plea of the assessee. The accrual has been dealt with in the relied judgments. Hence, under the given set of facts and circumstances, we by relying on the above decisions set aside the orders of the authorities and allow this ground of the assessee as it cannot be treated as income for the year relevant under appeal.”…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S. Creampacks(P) Ltd, Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.608/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cream Packs Private Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi. 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road, Elamkulam, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020. [Pan:Aaacc 9368C]