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.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

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.

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

section, are met. Exemptions provisions, as indeed tax statutes, are to be strictly construed: CC v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC); Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC); Ramnath & Co. v. CIT [2020] 425 ITR 337 (SC), affirming [2016] 388 ITR 307 (Ker); Ajmera Housing Corporation

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during the period relevant to A.Υ. 2008-09. 4. The assessee has not disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during the period relevant to A.Υ. 2008-09. 4. The assessee has not disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction

APTIV CONNECTION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI, KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KERALA

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation of Rs.17,73,077/- has been claimed on assets put to use during the period relevant to A.Υ. 2008-09. 4. The assessee has not disallowed any expenses against the dividend income received of Rs.17,33,532/-. Aptiv Connection Systems India P. Ltd. 5. "Lease principal repayment" of Rs.22,95,833/- has been claimed as deduction

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 cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up of new plant at Chennai. In the books

AMALGAM FOODS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

2 million (on 28.03.1997) toward supply of goods worth US$ 20 M within three years of the advance. The loan was secured by a bank guarantee (BG) by the assessee’s banker, Central Bank of India, Ernakulam (CBI) in favour of ODI. As the assessee could not supply the goods even up to the extended date, i.e., 31.12.2001, ODI invoked

US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) 621, Nila, Technopark Campus 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Kariyavattom, Trivandrum 695581 Kowdiar [Pan: Aaacu5628B] Thiruvananthapuram 695003 (Appellant) (Respondent)

X of the Act; and 1.4 The final order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction, inter alia, insofar as it purports to give effect to an invalid order of the TPO. Ground No. 2: Erroneous computation of the margin of the Assessee by disregarding the segmental margin computation 2.1. The TPO/AO erred in re-computing the Net Cost Plus

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciative. More so, of the assessee pleading his case sans reference to the Tribunal’s order in his own case! Reliance thereon, in terms of 9 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle the clear law qua judicial precedence, is, thus, misplaced (refer: Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Others [1999] 3 SCC 722 [(2