FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(1)(viii) of the Act, reads as under:- “(viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital than revenue expenditure is concerned. This first and foremost substantive ground stands rejected. 10. Learned counsel’s next argument in support of the remaining amount of its expenditure incurred on “QIP” issue of shares falls within section 35D(2)(c) of the Act; as the case may be; which has neither been considered in assessment findings

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(1)(iii) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, in relation to money borrowed for purchase of machinery even though the assessee had not used the machinery in the year of borrowing. Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v Core Health Care Ltd. [2001]251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding

THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE,, THRISSUR vs. SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR, THRISSUR

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

36-50). The income, he explained, returned by the 2 | P a g e Dy. CIT v. T.G. Chandrakumar assessee for AY 2009-10 on the basis of the sale deed dated 28/05/2008, i.e., qua 107 cents of land, was sought to be assessed for AY 2007-08 for 50 cents on the basis of delivery of it’s possession

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 cr. has been received by the shareholders; the balance being to Manko for paying off its liabilities, proved by it’s books, extracted in the relevant part in the impugned order. As such, even as SA specifies the sale consideration at Rs. 675 lacs, it delineates its payment, being Rs. 575 lacs to the company itself, which credits

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 cr. has been received by the shareholders; the balance being to Manko for paying off its liabilities, proved by it’s books, extracted in the relevant part in the impugned order. As such, even as SA specifies the sale consideration at Rs. 675 lacs, it delineates its payment, being Rs. 575 lacs to the company itself, which credits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while expressing an agreement with the contention of the appellant that debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while expressing an agreement with the contention of the appellant that debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE LTD,CHEMBUKKAVU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) &TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while expressing an agreement with the contention of the appellant that debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held

THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital expenditure. However, in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts, the CIT(A) while expressing an agreement with the contention of the appellant that debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held