THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

depreciation carried forward from previous years. For these and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) on the above points may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. In respect of ground Nos. 2 & 3 there was a disallowance of Rs.55

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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

190 of the Act wherein it is clarified that the tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B, only in respect of payments of "income" or "any sum" comprising an element of Income. 4.5 The DCIT and DRP have failed to consider the fact that tax had already been deducted by USTIPL at the time of payment of such

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

190 of the Act wherein it is clarified that the tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B, only in respect of payments of "income" or "any sum" comprising an element of Income. 4.5 The DCIT and DRP have failed to consider the fact that tax had already been deducted by USTIPL at the time of payment of such

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)

190, i.e., other than capital expenditure (excluding depreciation) (PB pg. 18). Rather than, thus, income at Rs.11,18,953, the assessee has incurred ‘loss’ to the extent of rs. 21.82 lacs. Inasmuch as the same cannot be met out of the corpus donations, received at Rs.133.20 lakhs, the same has been out of the existing capital, which includes liquid capital

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

190 26.07.2018 3,63,65,410 3. The return was taken up for scrutiny through CASS to verify various issues out of which one of the issues was excess depreciation. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. 4. The assessee’s claim for depreciation was disallowed by the AO from AY 2011- 12 onwards

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

190-192/Coch/2017, 360&464/Coch/2014 & 165/Coch/2017, 344 & 396/Coch/2014 & 310/Coch/2015 (2) of section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934". Thus, the operations and maintenance of the airport mainly consist of are: a. Ensuring safe landing / taking off of aircrafts in/from the airport. b. Providing passenger facilities within the airport as required and expected at an international airport. 10.3 Being

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

190-192/Coch/2017, 360&464/Coch/2014 & 165/Coch/2017, 344 & 396/Coch/2014 & 310/Coch/2015 (2) of section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934". Thus, the operations and maintenance of the airport mainly consist of are: a. Ensuring safe landing / taking off of aircrafts in/from the airport. b. Providing passenger facilities within the airport as required and expected at an international airport. 10.3 Being

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

190-192/Coch/2017, 360&464/Coch/2014 & 165/Coch/2017, 344 & 396/Coch/2014 & 310/Coch/2015 (2) of section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934". Thus, the operations and maintenance of the airport mainly consist of are: a. Ensuring safe landing / taking off of aircrafts in/from the airport. b. Providing passenger facilities within the airport as required and expected at an international airport. 10.3 Being

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

190. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that: (i) The fact that bodies which carry on statutory functions whose income was eligible to be considered for exemption under section 10(20A) ceased to enjoy that benefit after deletion of that provision w.e.f. 01.04.2003, does not ipso facto preclude their claim for consideration for benefit

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

190. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that: (i) The fact that bodies which carry on statutory functions whose income was eligible to be considered for exemption under section 10(20A) ceased to enjoy that benefit after deletion of that provision w.e.f. 01.04.2003, does not ipso facto preclude their claim for consideration for benefit

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

190. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that: (i) The fact that bodies which carry on statutory functions whose income was eligible to be considered for exemption under section 10(20A) ceased to enjoy that benefit after deletion of that provision w.e.f. 01.04.2003, does not ipso facto preclude their claim for consideration for benefit

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income