CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

depreciation attributable to evaluation of assets. In the assessment year 2017-18, he set aside all these issues to the file of AO for conducting verification and pass fresh assessment order after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in 4. the light of material

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciative. More so, of the assessee pleading his case sans reference to the Tribunal’s order in his own case! Reliance thereon, in terms of 9 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle the clear law qua judicial precedence, is, thus, misplaced (refer: Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Others

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

justice. 2. The learned Pr. CIT erred in reopening the assessment u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, the assessment completed vide proceedings of Page 2 of 8 Sec. 143(3) of the IT Act, even though there is no error which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue which requires revision u/s.263 of the IT Act. 3. The learned

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

justice. Ground No.4 - Erroneous disallowance of reimbursement of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DCIT and DRP have erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.34,94,59,683 under section 40(a)(ia), IT(TP)A Nos.475 & 134/Coch/2016. 4 M/s.US Technology Resources Pvt.Ltd. Ltd. ("USTIPL") on behalf

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

justice. Ground No.4 - Erroneous disallowance of reimbursement of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the DCIT and DRP have erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.34,94,59,683 under section 40(a)(ia), IT(TP)A Nos.475 & 134/Coch/2016. 4 M/s.US Technology Resources Pvt.Ltd. Ltd. ("USTIPL") on behalf

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

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

depreciation at 15% is excluded. 4) In view of principles of accounting, taxation and natural justice vide section 14A of the Income

ELITE AGRO SPECIALITIES,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment: Year 2013-14 M/S. Elite Agro Specialties The Income Tax Officer 22A, Sidco Development Plot V. Thrissur Peringandoor, Thrissur – 680 581 Pan : Aaafe6205F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K. Santha Kumar Respondent By : Smt. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 Pronouncement : 25.09.2024

natural justice to the appellant. 2. The authorities below have disallowed the claim for depreciation by totally misconstruing the what

M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PR CIT, , KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

justice, prescribing thus a four-way test for an order being liable for revision. The law in the matter is well-settled per a series of decisions by Hon'ble Apex Court, as indeed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, viz. Raja & Co. v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), furnishing the legal basis for revision and, in fact

UST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

natural justice. Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the order issued by the Ld. AO is bad in law in so far as the fact that the Ld. AO did not issue to the Appellant, a show cause notice for such reference, as per proviso to Section 92C(3) of the Act. 1.2 The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. Panel

NIZAR,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS,, THODUPUZHA/

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

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of sections 44AA and 44AB shall not apply in so far as they relate to the business referred to in sub- section (1) and in computing the monetary limits under those sections, the total turnover or, as the case may be, the income from the said business shall

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice that the AO did not issue to the Appellant, a show cause notice, as per proviso to section 92C(3) of the Act; 1.2 The AO has erred in making a reference to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (Transfer Pricing) ('TPO'), inter alia, since the TPO has not recorded an opinion that any of the conditions

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)

justice, one final opportunity is provided for 24.01.2024. Issue notice by RPAD to the assessee as well as at the email ID afore referred.’ On 24.01.2024, whereat again none appeared nor adjournment application received, it was noted by the Bench that the only Power of Attorney on record is dated 12.12.20212 in favour of one, Shri P.K. Sasidharan

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,KOCHI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the eligible plant and machinery acquired during the previous year relevant to AY 2016-17, the immediately preceding assessment year, claimed on the basis of the amendment to s. 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, by way of insertion of third proviso thereto. No enquiry qua these aspects having been made by the Assessing Officer

ESATTO BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice. The same be accordingly set aside for being decided afresh upon hearing the assessee. That apart, it is not a proper order inasmuch as it is an in limini dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. On the Bench enquiring as to how, then, was the impugned order received by the assessee, he explained

THE ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD vs. M/S. SNOFIELD FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.The Income Tax Officer -1 Vs M/S. Snofield Foods Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Door No. V/623B, Marutharode English Church Road Village, Kuppayode Road Palakkad 678014 Marutharode, Palakkad 678007 Pan – Aafcs3164B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veermani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.06.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2006-07. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By Assessing Officer U/S 41(1), Has Not Gone Into The Merits Of The Issue Simply Relying On The Fact That The Similar Issue Is Already Decided In Favour Of The Assessee In The Case Of Sister Concerns. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Not Taken Into Consideration That The Assessee Should Have Credited Percentage Of Deduction Of The Freezer Deposit Every

natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to furnish the details before the Assessing Officer, since the assessee could collate the details subsequent to the passing of the assessment order. We also notice that the impugned freezer deposit was shown as outstanding liability in the balance sheet of the assessee and in that case

M/S.HOTEL ABAD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am M/S.Hotel Abad, The Assistant Commissioner Chullickal, Of Income Tax, V. Kochi-682 005 Circle-1(1), Kerala Cochin, Kerala Pan – Aabfh3482N Appellant Respondent

depreciation of earlier years to the tune of Rs. 2,38,782/- were allowed by AO to be carried forward to subsequent year to be set off against income of the subsequent years. It is claimed by the assesse that theearlier year brought forward business losses were not allowed to be set off against income of the impugned assessment year

PRIME PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,THIRD FLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

nature. After allowing 10% depreciation, a net disallowance of Rs. 9,40,729 was made. (iv) The total additions/disallowances amounted to Rs. 20,52,937. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the assessee failed to appear or make any effective representation before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) passed

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

justice. 2. The Learned CIT-A grossly erred in dismissing the appeal by not giving the appellant sufficient opportunity. The Learned CIT(A) appeal ought not have disposed of the appeal when the Page 2 of 9 appellant sought adjournment online to furnish written submission. 3. The Learned CIT(A)/Assessing Officer (AO) grossly erred in disallowing the balance