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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A(3) which mandates such satisfaction to be recorded in a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act has thus not been correctly understood or applied by the AO. All of these overwhelm any possible argument

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 14A(3) which mandates such satisfaction to be recorded in a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act has thus not been correctly understood or applied by the AO. All of these overwhelm any possible argument

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

3 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 2021” The South Indian Bank Ltd. 14. We thus adopting the judicial consistency in light of their lordships judgement and direct the Assessing Officer to carry out his necessary factual verification. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 283/Coch/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. We take assessee’s appeal

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.

3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions

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.

3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions

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.

3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions

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.

3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions

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.

3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions

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)

3 Diadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, Circle - 2 provide that the balance 50% of the additional 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

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a copy of the order dated 25-05-2012 passed by this Bench in the case of Jojo Frozen Food (P) Ltd. and Cream Packs (P) Ltd. in I.T.A. Nos. 655 & 654/Coch/2010 wherein the Tribunal has considered an identical issue and decided the same in favour

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

14A by Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 01.04.2022. The Hon'ble Court adverted to the decision in Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. (supra), wherein the Apex Court was examining the applicability of the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii), substituted by Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The amended explanation widened the scope of the provision, and was accordingly held

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act and Rs.1,02,500/- has been disallowed. ii. Expenditure on which TDS was not deducted and remitted before the date of filing of return has been disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Act. iii. Loss on revaluation of tools amounting to Rs.4,48,719/- has been added back to the returned income

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. CIT’ for short) vide order u/s. 263 dated 22/03/2021. 2. The appeal, filed on 08/03/2022, though delayed by 256 days, was admitted in view of the blanket condonation