K.K.BUILDERS,KANNUR vs. DCIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

depreciation 6,26,61,743 6. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO is invalid as the JCIT had granted a mechanical approval u/sec. 153D of the Act and the additions cannot be made in absence

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

block of assessment. Hence this contention is wrong. 11. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs.22,61,383. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s.143(2) was duly served on the assessee. The AO made the following disallowances while concluding the assessment u/s.143(3) (i) Disallowance commission

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

block of assessment. Hence this contention is wrong. 11. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs.22,61,383. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s.143(2) was duly served on the assessee. The AO made the following disallowances while concluding the assessment u/s.143(3) (i) Disallowance commission

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

block of assessment. Hence this contention is wrong. 11. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Rs.22,61,383. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s.143(2) was duly served on the assessee. The AO made the following disallowances while concluding the assessment u/s.143(3) (i) Disallowance commission

ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

block of assets while computing the depreciation as per the IT Rules. However, the CIT(A) without going into the details, upheld the disallowance made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted that – Additional depreciation • While completing the scrutiny assessment

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing additional depreciation amounting to Rs.59,000/- in respect of new machinery acquired and put to use in the preceding year.” 7. The operative part of the order afore-referred is reproduced as under :- “3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 To begin with, in terms

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) nor considered by them? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of the depreciable capital assets attracted capital gains tax under Sec.45(4) of the Act, in the absence of distribution of any capital

DARWIN CRUIZ MANUEL,KOLLAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhdarwin Cruiz Manuel Dcit (International Kadayil Lane, Bishop Palace Road Taxation) Vs. Thangassery, Kollam 691007 Thiruvananthapuram [Pan: Admpc4204F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation disallowance of Rs.1,03,06,817/-. It emerges during the course of hearing that neither the learned Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) appear to have examined the same in light of the assessee’s corresponding block

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

assessed income is on account of reducing the capital subsidy of Rs. 5,93,99,739/- from the value of block of assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala. Assessee by : Shri Naresh C, CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR (Heard in Hybrid Bench) Date of Hearing – 27/03/2025 Date of Order - 27/05/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 16/05/2024, passed under section

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessment Year 2015-16, vide it’s Order dated 03.03.2023. 2. The sole issue arising in the instant appeal is if the amendment by way of insertion of the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, is retrospective in nature? While the assessee before us relies on the decisions in the following cases