PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

depreciation. If the expenditure is treated as 7 The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. revenue expenditure, it is either taken as an expenditure under Section 37(1) for computing income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or treated as "current repairs" entitled to deduction under Section 31(i). Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing

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

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

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

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

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 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

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

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)

31)/81- TP(Pt.)] dated 11-01-1982. 5. The benefit of sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) is also applicable to the Appellant as the Institution is an educational institution existing solely for educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit and which is substantially financed by the Government. 6. On an any other Grounds that may be adduced

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)

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

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)

section 133A of the Act at the business premises of one, Shri Ittoop Konuparamban, Chalakkudy, Thrissur, also the place of the assessee’s residence, on 13.03.2015, on the basis of the material impounded there-from and the subsequent statement of Shri Ittoop and, indeed, the assessee himself. The assessee, who had not filed any return of income for the year

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

section 32 of the Act. Balance additional 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

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

2) for the FY 2003- 04 relevant to the AY 2004-05 utilised during the FY 2004- 05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 Rs. 31,35,000/-. v) Disallowance of depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

2) for the FY 2003- 04 relevant to the AY 2004-05 utilised during the FY 2004- 05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 Rs. 31,35,000/-. v) Disallowance of depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

2) for the FY 2003- 04 relevant to the AY 2004-05 utilised during the FY 2004- 05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 Rs. 31,35,000/-. v) Disallowance of depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

2) for the FY 2003- 04 relevant to the AY 2004-05 utilised during the FY 2004- 05 relevant to the AY 2005-06 Rs. 31,35,000/-. v) Disallowance of depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies