THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10(5) of the 1922 Act which was similar to the definition given in Sec. 43(3) of the 1961 Act and this Court after approving the definition of plant given by Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France as expounded in Jarrold v. John Good and sons Limited, 1962, 40 T.C. 681 C.A., held that sanitary and pipe-line fittings

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10(5) of the 1922 Act which was similar to the definition given in Sec. 43(3) of the 1961 Act and this Court after approving the definition of plant given by Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France as expounded in Jarrold v. John Good and sons Limited, 1962, 40 T.C. 681 C.A., held that sanitary and pipe-line fittings

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

10(5) of the 1922 Act which was similar to the definition given in Sec. 43(3) of the 1961 Act and this Court after approving the definition of plant given by Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France as expounded in Jarrold v. John Good and sons Limited, 1962, 40 T.C. 681 C.A., held that sanitary and pipe-line fittings

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

10(23C), that the authority considering granting exemption, takes into account the objects of the enactment or instrument concerned, its underlying policy, and the nature of the functions, and activities, of the entity claiming to be a GPU charity. If in the course of its functioning it collects fees, or any consideration that merely cover its expenditure (including administrative

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

10(23C), that the authority considering granting exemption, takes into account the objects of the enactment or instrument concerned, its underlying policy, and the nature of the functions, and activities, of the entity claiming to be a GPU charity. If in the course of its functioning it collects fees, or any consideration that merely cover its expenditure (including administrative

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

10(23C), that the authority considering granting exemption, takes into account the objects of the enactment or instrument concerned, its underlying policy, and the nature of the functions, and activities, of the entity claiming to be a GPU charity. If in the course of its functioning it collects fees, or any consideration that merely cover its expenditure (including administrative

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

10. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR obligations, with effect from 01/04/2014. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to subsection (1) of section 37, so as to clarify that for purposes of subsection (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred

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

10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

depreciation in the subsequent year. ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to and relies on the judgments in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai v. T P Textiles (P) Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 411 (Madras) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (2016) 66 taxmann.com

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

14,57,680/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1),Trivandrum (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) vide order dated 26/12/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) at a total income of Rs. 70,75,70,904/-. While doing

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. The Tribunal, in support of its finding relied upon the decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Smt. Veena Goyal# and on a decision in the case of ITO v. Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan##. The Tribunal, therefore held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not apply in respect of allocation of 1,03,000 rights

CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

depreciation is claimed 1. Transit Mixers 65,62,774 8,20,346 6,56,277 2. Truck 85,86,528 10,73,316 8,58,653 Total 1,51,49,302 18,93,662 15,14,930 3. Other plant and 9,44,574 machineries Total 24,59,504 5.1 The sample copies of the invoices for the Transit Mixers

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

14,12.2018 after making an addition of 10,51,000/- under section 14A/Rule 8D. The total loss was assessed as Rs. 172,76,00,175/-. On verification of the records, it is found that the assessee had charged Rs. 3.26 Crores to the profit and Loss account based on actuarial valuation in respect of provision for sick leave benefits

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

14,12.2018 after making an addition of 10,51,000/- under section 14A/Rule 8D. The total loss was assessed as Rs. 172,76,00,175/-. On verification of the records, it is found that the assessee had charged Rs. 3.26 Crores to the profit and Loss account based on actuarial valuation in respect of provision for sick leave benefits