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

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\nfor statistical purpose and the stay application is dismissed as\ninfructuous

natural justice.\nWithout prejudice to the generality of the above, the order issued\nby the Ld. AO is bad in law in so far as the fact that the Ld. AO did\nnot issue to the Appellant, a show cause notice for such reference,\nas per proviso to Section 92C(3) of the Act.\n1.2 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

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

VENKATESH NAIK MOHANDAS & SONS,CALICUT vs. THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhvenkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons Acit, Circle 1(1) & Tps 10/993, Sri Venkatesh Palayalam Aayakar Bhavan Road, Palayam Vs. Mananchira Calicut 673001 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aabfv9069R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation claimed on Trademark amounting to 50,17,781/-. 2 Venkatesh Naik Mohandas & Sons 3. The Ld. CIT(A) as well authorities below failed to appreciate that the intangible assets being Trademark, which was transferred by the Partner, Mr. Rajeev Mohandas were business assets and by no stretch of imagination could be treated as a personal asset, since intangible asset

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

depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account of personal use. In any case the disallowance is highly excessive and arbitrary. 2 P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan vs. Asst. CIT 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)ought to have found that the interest paid on account of delayed payment

MASCOT INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KANNUR

In the result we partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the assessment made on the entertainment expenses and deleted the other expenses incurred by the assessee from the levy of FBT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

nature of expenses and the scope of the term "fringe benefits" provided or deemed to have been provided, before concluding that all 3 ITA No.359/Coch/2023. Mascot Industries. the expenses specified therein are fringe benefits, that too taxable @ 20%. 7. For the above and for other reasons to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that justice

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)

Natural Flavours & Extracts Ltd. consisting of Mr. K.P. Johny (1) & Mrs. Celine Johny(1) &other two to purchase the entire shares of the company Equity shares of 84,000--- (not clear) --- for a total consideration of Rs.6.75,00,000 (Rupees Six Crores & Seventy Five Lakhs Only). Copy of the agreement is enclosed herewith. 2. The number of shares purchased

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)

Natural Flavours & Extracts Ltd. consisting of Mr. K.P. Johny (1) & Mrs. Celine Johny(1) &other two to purchase the entire shares of the company Equity shares of 84,000--- (not clear) --- for a total consideration of Rs.6.75,00,000 (Rupees Six Crores & Seventy Five Lakhs Only). Copy of the agreement is enclosed herewith. 2. The number of shares purchased

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 3.7 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 3.7 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

depreciation claimed on residential building of Rs. 5,55,305/- e) Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 1,39,04,056/- f) Disallowance of advertisement expenses of Rs. 1,05,59,467/-. 8. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant-company had filed several objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP). The DRP issued