(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.

104 ITR 655High Court1976#3742 most cited

What is (CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. · 104 ITR 655 · protective assessment · precautionary assessment · recovery · doubt as to recipient of income · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 132Section 143(3)Section 61

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 10(26)section 61waiver of loansection 43(6)(c)section 43(b)substantive assessmentprotective assessmentsection 43(6)section 43(1)section 155live link

Judgments citing (CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.

S T I India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-5(1), Indore

Appeals are disposed of as under:

ITA 13/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…ost or WDV of asset. To support his contention, Ld. AR placed reliance upon following judicial rulings: Page 9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income-Tax Act is attracted. The said section provided that "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. Reduced by that portion of the cost therefore, if any, as has been met…

S T I India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-5(1), Indore

Appeals are disposed of as under:

ITA 12/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…ost or WDV of asset. To support his contention, Ld. AR placed reliance upon following judicial rulings: Page 9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income-Tax Act is attracted. The said section provided that "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. Reduced by that portion of the cost therefore, if any, as has been met…

S T I India Ltd., Indore vs. ACIT-5(1), Indore

Appeals are disposed of as under:

ITA 11/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

…ost or WDV of asset. To support his contention, Ld. AR placed reliance upon following judicial rulings: Page 9 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) (a) CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 230 (Kerala HC): Held: “3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is whether, on the facts of this case, section 43(1) of the Income-Tax Act is attracted. The said section provided that "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee. Reduced by that portion of the cost therefore, if any, as has been met…

World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2023AY 2010-11
Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)(vii)

…the same income is assessed in both places, the Department should provide relief suo motu to one of them. (ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC)). There can be precautionary assessments but not protective recovery. (CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker.)). But where an assessment is intended to be protective, it should be so expressed. (CIT v. Khalid Mehdi [1987] 165 ITR 685 (AP)). 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates (Vol. 1 page 272) is regarded as being protective because it is an assessment which is made ex abundanti cautela where the department has a "doubt as t…

Jayant Kaneria, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1719/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1719/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…at the same income is assessed in both places, the Department should provide relief suo motu to one of them. (ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC). There can be precautionary assessments but not protective recovery. (CIT v. Cochin Co.Pvt. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker.). But where an assessment is intended to be protective, it should be so expressed. (CIT v. Khalid Mehdi [1987] 165 ITR 685 (AP). 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates (Vol. 1 Page 272) is regarded as being protective because it is an assessment which is made ex abundanti cautela where the department has a "doubt as to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/1/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…1/113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.T.A.No.1/2015 C/W W.T.A.No.2/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2015, W.T.A.No.4/2015, W.T.A.No.5/2015, W.T.A.No.6/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2014, W.T.A.No.1/2014 & W.T.A.No.2/2014 W.T.A. No.1/2015 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Wealth Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Meenakshi De…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Kamakshi Devi

WTA/2/2014HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…1/113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.T.A.No.1/2015 C/W W.T.A.No.2/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2015, W.T.A.No.4/2015, W.T.A.No.5/2015, W.T.A.No.6/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2014, W.T.A.No.1/2014 & W.T.A.No.2/2014 W.T.A. No.1/2015 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Wealth Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Meenakshi De…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/6/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…1/113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.T.A.No.1/2015 C/W W.T.A.No.2/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2015, W.T.A.No.4/2015, W.T.A.No.5/2015, W.T.A.No.6/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2014, W.T.A.No.1/2014 & W.T.A.No.2/2014 W.T.A. No.1/2015 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Wealth Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Meenakshi De…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Nobel Coatings India (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 743/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

…ent of loan borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of acquiring asset has no relevance to the cost of assets on which depreciation has to be allowed. Similar view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. (184 ITR 230) (Ker) , as already stated, as follows:- “WDV as at the beginning of the preceding year as well as the depreciation actually allowed in that year have reached finality and cannot be changed in the assessment year under appeal. They could have been changed only if the assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barre…

Modern Terry Towels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2008-09 is treated as partly allowed and the appeal filed for AY 2009-10 is treated as allowed

ITA 6338/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43(1)

…bunal in the case of JCIT Vs. M/s Garware Chemicals Ltd (ITA No.1438/Mum/2012 & 1478/Mum/2012 dated 08.11.2013) and submitted that the co-ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cochin Co. (P) Ltd (184 ITR 230) and held that the principal portion of loan waived by banks cannot be reduced from the cost of assets u/s 43(1) of the Act. He submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred above. He submitted that the decision has been rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the peculiar facts prevailin…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158B

…d that the same income is assessed in both places, the Department should provide relief suo motu to one of them, ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 (SC). There can be precautionary assessments but not protective recovery, CIT v. Cochin Co Pvt Ltd (1976) 104 ITR 655 (Ker.). But where an assessment is intended to be protective, it should be so expressed, CIT v. Khalid Mehdi (1987) 165 ITR 685 (AP).” 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates5 is regarded as being protective because it is an assessment which is made ex abundanti ITA No.960/Kol/2011-M/s. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. A.Y.2000-01…

Official Liquidator

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27

…1/113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.T.A.No.1/2015 C/W W.T.A.No.2/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2015, W.T.A.No.4/2015, W.T.A.No.5/2015, W.T.A.No.6/2015, W.T.A.No.3/2014, W.T.A.No.1/2014 & W.T.A.No.2/2014 W.T.A. No.1/2015 Between: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. Wealth Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: 1. Smt. Meenakshi De…