M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

36 Taxman 305 However, the AO was of the opinion that that this pre- operative expenditure should go to form part of cost of plant and machinery and buildings as envisaged u/s. 43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

36 (l)(va) of the Income Tax Act. k) Other decisions in favour of the appellant In the following decisions, the High Courts have held that payments of Employees share of PF collected if made before the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance of section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 6 M/s. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

36(1)(v) respectively, the claim of deduction cannot be allowed. Therefore, the assessee’s grounds for both the assessment years with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of contribution made to non-recognized superannuation fund, are rejected. It is ordered accordingly.’ 4.2.3 Following the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal, as above, the disallowance of Rs.2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

36(1)(v) respectively, the claim of deduction cannot be allowed. Therefore, the assessee’s grounds for both the assessment years with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of contribution made to non-recognized superannuation fund, are rejected. It is ordered accordingly.’ 4.2.3 Following the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal, as above, the disallowance of Rs.2

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram ("CIT(A)") has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.116,75,66,661 and restricting the deduction under section 80P only to the extent of profits earned

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram ("CIT(A)") has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.116,75,66,661 and restricting the deduction under section 80P only to the extent of profits earned

M/S.KERALA STATE CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEV BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram ("CIT(A)") has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.116,75,66,661 and restricting the deduction under section 80P only to the extent of profits earned

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deducted in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid." 24. Thus, the Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed the rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act to provide that all TDS made during the previous year can be deposited with

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1). The same, computed at Rs. 6,45,503, was thus in excess. The amendment to s. 234B(3) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015, would not be applicable. As per the Assessing Officer(AO) interest on the differential tax of Rs. 15.37 lacs was to be worked from the first day of the assessment year, i.e., 01/4/2010

M/S.THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,COCHIN vs. THE JT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

TDS on interest paid to various welfare boards. We shall take for adjudication the issues ground wise as under: Ground no.1: 4 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a cooperative bank. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of total income

THEACIT, COCHIN vs. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm & (Asst Year 2010-11)) The Ernakulam Dist Coop Bank Ltd Vs The Jt Director Of Income Tax Kakkanad (Exemption) Kochi Kochi ( Appellant/Respondent) (Respondent/Appellant)

TDS on interest paid to various welfare boards. We shall take for adjudication the issues ground wise as under: Ground no.1: 4 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a cooperative bank. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of total income

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

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

36. It is submitted that dues in this respect, if not paid, will be paid or may be adjusted from the tax demanded and paid of Rs.8,17,895/- for the year 2006-07. 10. (i) As per the assessment order, Backhaul charges and Uplinking charges have been assessed for levy of TDS u/s.201(1) and interest u/s.201(lA). Kindly