ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

14A(1). In case, the Assessing Officer is not, on the basis of the objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, he shall have to reject the claim and state the reasons for doing so. Having done so, the Assessing Officer will have to determine the amount

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

14A(1). In case, the Assessing Officer is not, on the basis of the objective criteria and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity, satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, he shall have to reject the claim and state the reasons for doing so. Having done so, the Assessing Officer will have to determine the amount

THEDCIT, 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 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

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance u/s. 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24th March 2008. There was a further ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 7 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance u/s. 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24th March 2008. There was a further ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 7 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

3) of Section 14A were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2007 to provide for methodology for computing of disallowance u/s. 14A. However, the actual methodology was provided in terms of Rule 8D only from 24th March 2008. There was a further ITA Nos.30,31 & 32/Coch/2016 7 M/s.HLL Lifecare Limited. amendment to Rule 8D with effect from 2nd June

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

14A should be made under Rule 8D by the A.O. In the impugned assessment year, i.e., 2009-2010, the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order of the A.O. by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in assessee's own case. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

14A should be made under Rule 8D by the A.O. In the impugned assessment year, i.e., 2009-2010, the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order of the A.O. by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in assessee's own case. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

M/S.MUTHOOTT MINI FINANCIERS P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2,, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

section 14A is totally wrong. While applying the rule 8D, Assessing Officer has violated the principles and procedures he himself had adopted previously in the assessment in respect of previous year. According to rule 8D, the expenditure in relation to the exempt income would be aggregate of the following: ……………………….” 2.2 At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that

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

section 43(5). With regard to speculative I hedging transactions we had benefit of perusing the judgments I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 of M.G. Bros. V CIT (1985) 1564 ITR 695/20 Taxman 90 (AP), Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 169 (1987) 35 Taxman 3 (Cal), Delhi Flour Mills

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

section 43(5). With regard to speculative I hedging transactions we had benefit of perusing the judgments I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 of M.G. Bros. V CIT (1985) 1564 ITR 695/20 Taxman 90 (AP), Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 169 (1987) 35 Taxman 3 (Cal), Delhi Flour Mills

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

3) above, then application of general rate of depreciation at 15% is excluded. 4) In view of principles of accounting, taxation and natural justice vide section 14A

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