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

capital items can be only adjusted in terms of provisions section 43A of the Act. The loss or gain on such 30 Apollo Tyres Ltd. transaction had no impact on the determination of taxable income. Therefore, the AO had clearly fell in error in brining the same to tax in the year of reversal of the loss especially in view

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)

41,500 b) From Mrs. CelineJohny (1): 500” [(1) the names, K.O. Ittoop & Lizzy Ittoop appear in the letter on record, called for by the Bench in view of the letter extracted in the assessment order (pg. 12) being not clear; the assessee’s file was stated by the ld. Sr. DR as not available with the concerned

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)

41,500 b) From Mrs. CelineJohny (1): 500” [(1) the names, K.O. Ittoop & Lizzy Ittoop appear in the letter on record, called for by the Bench in view of the letter extracted in the assessment order (pg. 12) being not clear; the assessee’s file was stated by the ld. Sr. DR as not available with the concerned

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

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

INKEL LTD,KAKKANAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

41,694, totalling Rs.49,67,924. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the original assessment order dated 14.06.2021 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the Assessing officer to reframe the assessment in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before

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

THEKKEDATHU RAMAN PILLAI BALACHANDRAN,PACHALAM, KOCHI vs. ITO, NON. CORP. WARD-1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee bearing ITA No

section 143(3) of the Act. The\nLd. AO rejected the long-term capital gain on sale of agricultural\nproperty Rs.1,41,14,718/- and treated it as taxable long term capital\ngain. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.\nCIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)passed a speaking order without considering\nthe ground of the assessee

BEAVER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CORPORATE RANGE 1, KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-1 on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by both the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

GOOD HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhgood Homes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Range-1 3Rd Floor, Puthuran Plaza C.R. Building, Is Press Road Mg Road, Kpcc Junction Vs. Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682011 [Pan: Aabcg0444L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd Acit, Corporate Range-1 Asian School Of Architecture C.R. Building, Is Press Road & Design Innovation Kochi 682018 Vs. Silversand Island, Vytila Road Ernakulam 682019 [Pan: Aadcb0193M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-1 on the following grounds which are independent and without prejudice to each other. 2. That on facts and in law, the orders passed by both the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "AO") and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

A B C SALES CORPORATION ,KANNUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL IRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

BATHX BATHWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COCHIN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

ABC BUILDWARES INDIA(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

ABC BUILDWARES(P) LIMITED,KANNUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1`, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani

RUCHIT PARIMAL ASHAR,SANALA ROAD, MORBI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

41 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2018-19 516/COCH/2024 42 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2019-20 . ITA No.404 & others/Coch/2024 Page 3 of 165 517/COCH/2024 43 Abdul Gafoor -do- 2020-21 518/COCH/2024 44 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2017-18 519/COCH/2024 45 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2018-19 520/COCH/2024 46 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2019-20 521/COCH/2024 47 Muhammed Jabir -do- 2020-21 522/COCH/2024 48 Muhammed Madani