AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the IT Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage of such proceedings

ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO.LTD,ALAPPUZHA vs. DCIT, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain under Section 50B is the sale proceeds

DCIT, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S ACEELERATED FREEZE DRYING CO, LTD, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the appeal of the

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

depreciable assets. On the other hand under Section 50B the asset has to be first classified between long term or short term capital asset and then for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 net worth has to be computed in terms of explanation 1 of the said Section. The capital gain under Section 50B is the sale proceeds

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

139 of the Act, as the correct rate of depreciation was not indicated for the purpose of claiming depreciation, the correct rate at which depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

139 of the Act, as the correct rate of depreciation was not indicated for the purpose of claiming depreciation, the correct rate at which depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

139 of the Act, as the correct rate of depreciation was not indicated for the purpose of claiming depreciation, the correct rate at which depreciation is allowable has to be indicated, and otherwise, return cannot be treated as one under section

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

139 IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim the benefit of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 31. In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference and, hence, the appeals are accordingly

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

139 IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim the benefit of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 31. In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference and, hence, the appeals are accordingly

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(1) of the Act and hence the AO allowed set off of earlier years unabsorbed depreciation against the income

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

139(1). The said date for the assessment year 2018/19 was 30/09/2018.” 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9 Ayurgreen Ayurveda Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed an amount

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss has to be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. 10. On perusal of assessee’s return for AY 2005-06 it is seen that the same is in Form no.3A, which is meant for assesses claiming exemption

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss has to be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. 10. On perusal of assessee’s return for AY 2005-06 it is seen that the same is in Form no.3A, which is meant for assesses claiming exemption

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. MANOHAR HILL CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri George George K.

section 139 makes it amply clear that if the loss is to be carried forward, the return of loss has to be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. 10. On perusal of assessee’s return for AY 2005-06 it is seen that the same is in Form no.3A, which is meant for assesses claiming exemption

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) which is mandatory in nature. It was submitted that there is no provision in the Act providing that the balance 50% will not be allowed in succeeding year. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. ACIT vs. Kitex Garments Ltd. in ITA No. 216/Coch/2015 dated 03/08/2016

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) which is mandatory in nature. It was submitted that there is no provision in the Act providing that the balance 50% will not be allowed in succeeding year. In support of this contention, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. ACIT vs. Kitex Garments Ltd. in ITA No. 216/Coch/2015 dated 03/08/2016

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

139(1) of the Act. Suffice to say, case law Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has already decided the instant issue in department’s favour and against the assessee. Allowed accordingly. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 11. Learned CIT-DR further submits that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts