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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such disallowance. (ii) In terms of the provisions of Rule 8D, the amount to be disallowed shall be the aggregate of (i) expenses directly incurred to earn exempt income, (ii) interest expense (not directly attributable to any exempt income) worked

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

144, Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules provides for the mechanism to determine the quantum of such disallowance. (ii) In terms of the provisions of Rule 8D, the amount to be disallowed shall be the aggregate of (i) expenses directly incurred to earn exempt income, (ii) interest expense (not directly attributable to any exempt income) worked

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

144(1) proposing to make the following adjustments:- i. Addition as proposed by TPO — towards notional Guarantee Commission - Rs.2,03,38,752/- ii. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80G in respect of donations made to eligible entities out of CSR Funds – Rs.49,34,550/- Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 3 of 8 3.1 On receipt of Draft Order

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.08.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee is a wholly owned public sector undertaking (PSU) of the Government of Kerala (GoK), operating in the automobile sector, manufacturing, marketing and servicing various models of three-wheelers. It filed it’s return of income for the relevant year

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

SINI NOUSHAD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 144/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sini Noushad The Income Tax Officer Poovathumkiadavil House Ward - 1(3), Thrissur Kara Post, Peethamaballur Vs. Kathiyalam, Thrissur 608671 [Pan: Emrps6227J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide his order dated 15.02.2023. The assessee has qua the instant appeal also filed a stay application. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

QUADISIYYA HAJJ CELL,KOLLAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18 Quadisiyya Hajj Cell Quadisiyya Complex Thazhuthala Ito Vs. Mukathala Po Ward-3 Kollam 691 577 Kollam Pan No :Aaafq3277H Appellant Respondent

section 69A of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee has preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee has not furnished explanation/evidences in support of grounds of appeal inspite of several opportunities provided to them. As the assessee

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant and machinery, shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. This view was adopted in Godrej Industries Ltd. (supra), making reference also to Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The decision

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)

depreciation on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which has not been allowed in the year of acquisition and installation of such plant and machinery, shall be allowed in the immediately succeeding previous year. This view was adopted in Godrej Industries Ltd. (supra), making reference also to Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The decision

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

section 154 and the period of limitation will have to be computed with reference to July 12, 1982. '' As will be seen from the Tribunal's observations on the issue, the Tribunal has assumed that since the present rectification petition of the assessee relates to depreciation, the previous rectification should be construed to contain the mistake sought to be rectified

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

144 r.ws. 147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E ASESSEMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

144 r.ws. 147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

144 r.ws. 147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

THE MUTHALAMADA SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUTHALAMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

144 r.ws. 147 of the Act after disallowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs.42,11,084/-, rebate on interest and depreciation and demanding a tax and interest of Rs.157,80,080/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 05.12.2024 has partly allowed the appeal

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts