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

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

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

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

143(3) r.w.s.263 29.08.2023 Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. Heard both parties. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA.735/Coch./2023 – [AY 2009-2010] : 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeking to annul the reopening herein, learned counsel refers to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons

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

143(3) r.w.s.263 29.08.2023 Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. Heard both parties. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA.735/Coch./2023 – [AY 2009-2010] : 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeking to annul the reopening herein, learned counsel refers to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons

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

143(3) r.w.s.263 29.08.2023 Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. Heard both parties. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA.735/Coch./2023 – [AY 2009-2010] : 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground seeking to annul the reopening herein, learned counsel refers to the Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 12-12-2017. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have understood that the payments for an aggregate amount of Rs. 6,55,650 by cash has been made towards consideration for the purchase of capital assets as per details given below and provisions of section 40A(3

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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 Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

143(3) of the Act, the assessee was granted MAT credit of ₹ ₹ 22,59,55,822 under section 115-AA of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the said order was revised and rectified several times thereafter, and even vide rectification order 24/03/2016, the assessed income remained unchanged. We find that vide its application dated 16/04/2015

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.2.2023 wherein appeal filed by assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation in accordance with law. Accordingly ground no. 4 of assessee is allowed with above direction. 12. Thus, ITA No.268/Coch/2023 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No.269/Coch/2023 is filed by assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.2.2023 wherein appeal filed by assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

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.

3. Before us, the assessee-appellant, represented by Shri Joseph Markose, Senior Advocate, would assail the appellate order only on the aspect of the ld. CIT(A) having exceeded his jurisidction in directing the AO for the years impacted by the claim for depreciation by the assesseefor AYs. 1998-99 to 2009-10. The jurisidction

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 in AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 in reversing the disallowance made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 in AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 in reversing the disallowance made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 in AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 in reversing the disallowance made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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 in AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 in reversing the disallowance made

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

section 263. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The subject matter of the revision is that the assessed loss u/s. 143(3) at Rs.1,76,97,290/- is allowed to be carried forward as per the computation sheet. The PCIT has held the order