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

220/-. The assessee fails to establish essential requirements for claiming weighted deduction. Therefore, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal warrants interference under Section 260A of the Act and the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.” Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court we confirm the disallowances made

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

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. 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. 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

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

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

RIYAS NELLIYOTE,KUTTIADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gains at Rs.29,92,220 after allowing exemption u/s.54F of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 09.10.2018 and penalty was imposed vide order dated 25th April, 2019 amounting to Rs.10,95,880. 3 ITA No.767/Coch/2024. Sri.Riyas Nelliyote. 5. Aggrieved by the order

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

220/- instead of Rs.2,11,06,320/-. The assessee’s case was then selected for scrutiny and the ld. A.O. passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.2,25,54,266/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 30.09.2022 had partly allowed

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

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

gains of business u/s. 28(i) of the Act). And which is only understandable inasmuch as the diminution in the value of the equipment and, correspondingly, in the security deposit amount refundable, which thus inures to the assessee in his own right, has nothing to do with the termination of the Agreement, even as the amount, to the extent