DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

revising the assessment under section 263 of the Act. In that case, the Court observed that “since no such enquiry was made by the ITO ............. the assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue and what is prejudicial to the interests of revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, CORPCIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

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

revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, we find that the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the I.T.Act

M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

revise the assessment order dated 16/09/2016 stating that the foreign exchange loss is capital expenditure and not allowable as per provisions of Section 37(1) without considering the submissions of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the foreign exchange loss claimed was allowable u/s 36 (1 ) (iii) of the I. T Act, I.T.A. No.420/Coch/2019 since acquisition of the asset

GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

revision of assessment under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 3.3 In response, the authorized representative of the assessee filed a letter on 13.3.2018 before CIT wherein it was inter-alia stated that 'when the AO has allowed the depreciation on intangible assets after due application of mind, the view taken is one of the possible views. Hence provisions

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

depreciation cannot be allowed as a deduction. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Parliament had conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax U/s. 263

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 on STB’s at the rate of 80% for that year has been revised by the Commissioner u/s 263

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, CORPCIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

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

revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, we find that the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the I.T.Act

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The South Indian Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Head Office, Mission Quarters, T.B. Road, Thrissur. [Pan: Aabct 0022 F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur Appellant By: Shri Naresh C, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Scheduled Bank, Engaged In The Business Of Banking. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 31/03/2018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 446,81,29,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps

depreciation on investments. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) contending that AO ought not have disallowed a sum of Rs.14,10,36,183/- being difference in bad debts written off and also not allowed the additional claim of provisional bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 52 crores. However, learned CIT(A) considering

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

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

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

u/s 115JB of the Act while adding provision for unascertained liability and 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

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

u/s 115JB of the Act while adding provision for unascertained liability and 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

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.

263 of the Act, in respect of this issue are as follows: – 5 “4. I have considered the matter. With regard to bad debt written off,deduction u/s 36(1) and depreciation on investments, the submission made and attached documents filed were seen. After consideration of the matter, it is seen that setting aside of the assessment on those issues

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

revised by the CIT-II, Kochi by order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 03.3.2011 setting aside assessment already passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26.12.2008 for redoing the same. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 143(2) on 27.11.2011. 4. During the assessment proceedings it was found that assessee firm over the years had developed a software called ‘Quadra

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

revised by the CIT-II, Kochi by order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 03.3.2011 setting aside assessment already passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26.12.2008 for redoing the same. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 143(2) on 27.11.2011. 4. During the assessment proceedings it was found that assessee firm over the years had developed a software called ‘Quadra

M/S.KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation claimed. viii) New foreign asset in the nature of financial interest in any entity. ix) Low income shown by large contractors. x) Receipt of large value foreign remittance (Froml5CA). xi) Large difference in the opening stock of current year and closing stock of previous year shown in P86a/c as per Return of Income. ix). Large difference in the closing

M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ADCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

depreciation on computer peripherals, foreign commission payment, revaluation expenses, travelling expenses and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. 3. Thereafter, on 16/12/2015, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi issued a notice to the assessee requiring it to show cause why revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act should not be initiated. Two reasons were mentioned in such notice

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

u/s. 37 of the Act, was not in order. 2.3. The CIT(A) observed that as the Assessing Officer failed to take notice of these while completing the assessment, the assessment passed on 20.03.2015 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, a notice was issued to assessee on 20.12.2016 proposing to revise the assessment

DESAI HOMES,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2(1), COCHIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Desai Homes .......... Appellant Dd Trade Tower, Kadavanthra Road Kaloor, Kochi 682017 [Pan: Aacfd0390E] Vs. Acit, Non-Corporte Circle 2(1) .......... Respondent C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builder and developer. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 29.10.2017 and the same was 2 Desai Homes revised on 30.10.2018 declaring

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

depreciation of Rs. 11,80,715/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income in the remand proceedings, since the return of income was revised consequent to detection made by the department during the course of survey proceedings based on the direction of the ld. PCIT in the order u/s. 263

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

revision powers under Section 263 of the Act to disallow the additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and directed