JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned ITA Nos.88 TO 91/Coch/2022 Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur Page 11 of 19 (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).” 11.1 In our opinion, since there was no material brought on record by to come

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

11,83,12,700/-. The appellant company also reported\nthe following international transactions in Form 3CEB:-\nNature of International\ntransactions\nAmount\n(in INR)\nMethod used\nProvision of IT services\n156,47,13,486\nTNMM\nCorporate guarantee provided to\nthe Assessee by the AEs\nNil\nOther Method\n3\nThe appellant-company also submitted TP study by adopting\nby adopting Transactional

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

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

11. Further, the scope of expenditure used in sec.40A(3) of the Act was examined by the Government and in the memorandum of budget for the Finance Act, 2017, which clearly established that the existence of provisions of sec.40A(3) are applicable only to the revenue expenditure incurred in cash exceeding certain monetary threshold. It was further observed that there

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

Section 139(3) of the 1961 Act, the AO allowed set offof unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years to the tune of Rs. 11

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

section 10B unit has to be excluded at source itself and the AO erred in setting off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,86,43,083/- against the income 11 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. determined. I direct the AO to recomputed the income on the basis of my earlier findings in this appellate order and further direct him to allow deduction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 and 12 which reads as under :— '10. The next question is whether the acquisition of such a capital asset is depreciable asset or not? Under section 32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

section 34(3), and was accordingly barred by limitation. The said decision, representing the majority view, holds the field to date, having been since applied in several decisions, viz.Hungerford Investment Trade Ltd. vs. ITO[1998] 231 ITR 175 (SC) and CIT vs. Amy Colabawala [2000] 243 ITR 19 (Ker). 4.8 It is thus manifestly clear that an appellate authority cannot

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Oil Palm India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Xiv/130, Kottayam South P.O., Circle – 1, Kodimatha, Kottayam. Kottayam. Pan : Aaaci 3695 G Appellant Respondent

section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR filed a detailed submission with regard to the rectification order passed by the AO which is extracted as below: In fact, the issue of taxability of income from the manufacture and sale of palm oil has been a consistent issue in the assessment

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

section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this Act, unless context otherwise requires,– (15) “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that the advancement

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

section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this Act, unless context otherwise requires,– (15) “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that the advancement

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

section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this Act, unless context otherwise requires,– (15) “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that the advancement

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(23C)(iiiab) on the ground that the same was not made in the return of income. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that his powers are co-terminus with that of the assessing authority and claim other than by a return of income could be entertained by him. 6. Without prejudice to the above arguments

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

11-12 and hence the remaining 50% of the additional depreciation is to be allowed in the succeeding year, i.e., AY 12-13. • Hence the assessee is entitled to full benefit of additional depreciation when the new plant and machinery is acquired and installed. The restriction under section 32(1)(ii) based on the period of usage cannot divest