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

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

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

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

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

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

THEDCIT, 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

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

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 claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

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 claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

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 claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

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 claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets. Moreover, the assessing officer had observed that the closing balance of preceding year and opening balance of relevant year under general fund

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation. Only business loss u/s 72(1) is ineligible to be carried forward u/s 139(3). The said section is not applicable

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

depreciation, etc. Subsequently, the AO sought to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 23.03.2013 after recording the following reasons u/s. 147 of the Act:- "Information has been received from investigation Wing Calicut that bank account No. 1331 in the name of M/S. M.P. Traders shows huge credits and all these are cheque payments from

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was filed for AY 2015-16. The ITO (Exemption), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 44,88,000/- in current account maintained with South Indian Bank Ltd. and Rs. 19,68,000/- in the account maintained with Catholic