THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. PCIT, , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

143(3) dated 17.02.2021 in so far as it relates to issue of bad debts written off is without jurisdiction.” 6. The learned PCIT, vide order passed under section 263 of the Act, inter-alia, after considering the submissions of the assessee along with documents filed, held that the setting aside of the assessment on the issue of claim

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

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act on 30.12.2016 proposing to make the following additions: - i. TP adjustment – Rs. 3,48,96,832/- ii. Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the disallowance of deduction u/s 80Gof the Act by the Assessing officer the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Thus, the solitary issue raised before us is whether the AO justified in rejecting claim u/s 80G of the Act on the expenses

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 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

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 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

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.

143(1) of the Act for the intervening years, to which the claim pertains, would justify the contention raised. 4.3 Our second preliminary observation in the matter is that if information sourced from another wing of the Department, as was the case, inter alia, in ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur[1997] 224 ITR 362 (SC);Central Provinces Manganese

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18.07.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, vide it’s Order dated 03.03.2023. 2. The sole issue arising in the instant appeal is if the amendment by way of insertion of the third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, is retrospective in nature? While

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery put to use in previous year 2007-08 for an amount of Rs.53,77,981 for AY 2009-10 u/s. 32(1)(iia). The assessee submitted that as per 2nd proviso to section

KITEX GARMENTS LIMITED,KIZHAKKAMBALAM vs. DCIT 1(1), CORPORATE CIRCLE, KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 73,83,53,740/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the excess depreciation claimed without reducing the capital subsidy from the actual cost of assets and treating the interest subsidy

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1. Brought forward losses of A.Y. 2008-09 have not been correctly declared by the assessee in the return. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs.40,96,155/- from business loss of Rs.24,20,60,716/- which is not proper. 3. Additional depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, treated the income declared under the head “Income from Other Sources” as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, and therefore, applied the provisions of section 115-BBE for computing the tax liability of the assessee. It is evident from the record that while assessing the total income

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after making disallowance on account of royalty and addition on account of notional interest and disallowance of cost of replacing Rotary Calciner held to be capital. The assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 12.09.2010 confirmed the disallowance. On further appeal before