DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

depreciation was allowed to be carried forward. It was fairly admitted by the Ld.Sr.DR that the assesseehas filed return of income within prescribed time although it was not supported by the audited accounts. It was submitted that the accounts of the assesse were audited much later on 05th February 2003. The Ld.Sr.DRrely on the ground Nos.3 and 5 and also

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

E. Non-statutory bodies E.1. In the present batch of cases, non-statutory bodies performing public functions, such as ERNET and NIXI are engaged in important public purposes. The materials on record show that fees or consideration charged by them for the purposes provided are nominal. In the circumstances, it is held that the said two assessees are driven

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

E. Non-statutory bodies E.1. In the present batch of cases, non-statutory bodies performing public functions, such as ERNET and NIXI are engaged in important public purposes. The materials on record show that fees or consideration charged by them for the purposes provided are nominal. In the circumstances, it is held that the said two assessees are driven

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

E. Non-statutory bodies E.1. In the present batch of cases, non-statutory bodies performing public functions, such as ERNET and NIXI are engaged in important public purposes. The materials on record show that fees or consideration charged by them for the purposes provided are nominal. In the circumstances, it is held that the said two assessees are driven

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 05.12.2023 vide DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457420(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457386(1) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 05.12.2023 vide DIN & Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457420(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058457386(1) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17 respectively passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment was reopened

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment was reopened

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment was reopened

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14. The first common ground in first 3 appeals is with regard to reopening of assessment. 2. In the assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, assessment was reopened

SRI.K.P. JOHNY,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciable asset, it’s WDV. When it is therefore stated therein that VHPL would thus become the absolute owner of it’s assets, the same is to be understood as stated in a loose manner; the acquisition of the entire share-holding in Manko, a private company, giving it complete control over and a de facto ownership it’s business

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), THRISSUR vs. SRI.K.P. JOHNY, THRISSUR

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciable asset, it’s WDV. When it is therefore stated therein that VHPL would thus become the absolute owner of it’s assets, the same is to be understood as stated in a loose manner; the acquisition of the entire share-holding in Manko, a private company, giving it complete control over and a de facto ownership it’s business

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.PVR TOURIST HOME, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, Non-Corporate .......... Appellant Iind Floor, C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682018 Vs. Pvr Tourist Home .......... Respondent Palarivattom, Kochi 682025 [Pan: Aadfp3442Q] Appellant By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Respondent By: Shri Mohan Pulickal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This is an appeal restored by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.07.2024 in ITA No. 203 of 2019 with the following directions: - “9. Thus, while we uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the charge of Short Term Capital Gains, in the instant case, has to be as mandated

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: These appeals by the assessee are is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] dated 6.12.2021, 30.11.2021 & 6.12.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 2

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: These appeals by the assessee are is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] dated 6.12.2021, 30.11.2021 & 6.12.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 2

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: These appeals by the assessee are is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] dated 6.12.2021, 30.11.2021 & 6.12.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ITA Nos.32 to 34/Coch/2022 Page 2

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

2% instead of 3%. c) The section under which MAT credit has been allowed has been wrongly mentioned as 115AA instead of 115JAA. d) After 'balance payable', the section under which interest has been levied has been wrongly mentioned as 234D instead of 234B. e) The date of the last payment of tax has been wrongly mentioned

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

E R Per Bench This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.03.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition Rs. 1,45,22,651/- under the head capital

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

E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), Kottayam dated 21.07.2016 for AY 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of woven/tufted carpets, powerloom floor coverings, jute coverings, trading in handlooms