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

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

6) in sections 10A and 10B has been amended to do away with the restriction') on the carry forward of business losses and unabsorbed deprecation. The amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 01-04-2011 and have been made applicable to business losses or unabsorbed depreciation arising in the assessment year 2001-02 and subsequent years

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under this Act, or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which was treated as a “well” i.e., only a building, than

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which was treated as a “well” i.e., only a building, than

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which was treated as a “well” i.e., only a building, than

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

6 therein that the hon'ble Gujarat high court had also accepted similar issue therein rejecting the department’s submission and hold that such plant and machinery is indeed entitled for depreciation. We find that their lordships had come across the corresponding depreciation claim relating to an oil rig, which was treated as a “well” i.e., only a building, than

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

section, are met. Exemptions provisions, as indeed tax statutes, are to be strictly construed: CC v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC); Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ramnath & Co. v. CIT [2020] 425 ITR 337 (SC), affirming [2016] 388 ITR 307 (Ker); Ajmera Housing Corporation

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