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.

5 of section 80A would operate by itself. In cases where returns have been filed, the question of exemptions or deductions referable to section 80P would definitely have to be considered and granted if eligible. 20. Here, questions would arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well

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.

5) of section 139 as it stood at the relevant time. It says that if any person has furnished any return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish revised return. Such revised return can also be filed in respect of return which was filed in pursuance

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.

5) of section 139 as it stood at the relevant time. It says that if any person has furnished any return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish revised return. Such revised return can also be filed in respect of return which was filed in pursuance

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.

5) of section 139 as it stood at the relevant time. It says that if any person has furnished any return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish revised return. Such revised return can also be filed in respect of return which was filed in pursuance

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

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

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

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

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

depreciation, from previous assessment years, amounting to Rs.78,63,829/-. The losses were determined, in the respective assessment years, in pursuance of returns filed under section 139(3). and are in accordance with section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The delay in filing of return for the assessment 'year 2007-08 does not affect the eligibility

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

depreciation for each of the relevant I.T(TP).A. No. 514Coch/2019 & C.O. No.47/Coch/2019 assessment year Sub-section 7 Transfer of goods and services must be at fair Not applicable market value of goods in case of availing deduction under section 10a of the Act Sub-section 7A Tax holiday benefits in case of transfer of Not applicable undertaking pursuant

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, ALUVA

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

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

139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). According to the Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, s. 37(1) is a residuary section extending the I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by ss. 30 to 36. This section, according to the learned author, covers cases of business

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUD CHEMIE INDIA P. LTD, COCHIN

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

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

139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). According to the Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, s. 37(1) is a residuary section extending the I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by ss. 30 to 36. This section, according to the learned author, covers cases of business

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

depreciation on undivided share of land treating them as cost paid towards building. 8. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the onus to establish the linkage between the borrowed funds and the interest free loans to the sister concerns lies on the assessee. 9. It is prayed that the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income

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, 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 ,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

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

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