CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT v. Deha Assam Tea Co. P. Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 555, held as follows:- “As a matter of fact the same point having once been raised in one of the income-tax references, a Division Bench of this Court

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

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

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

47(ii) was deleted by the amendment that introduced section 45(4). Thus, the purpose and object of the Finance Act, 1987 was to charge tax arising on distribution of capital assets of the firm which otherwise was not subject to tax. Therefore, the language of section 45(4) should be construed to mean that the expression "or otherwise

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation

M/S SKYLINE E TECH,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “1. The order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. PCIT, , THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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 Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

2)(v) reads as under: where such debts or part of debt relates to advances made by an assesse to which clause(viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assesse has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts

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 OIL PALM INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Oil Palm India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Xiv/130, Kottayam South P.O., Circle – 1, Kodimatha, Kottayam. Kottayam. Pan : Aaaci 3695 G Appellant Respondent

47,61,990/-. The assessee aggrieved by the order of rectification, filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by stating that the objections were not raised before the AO during the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR filed a detailed

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

CHENGAZHASSERIL THOMAS KURIAN,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts

V D DEVASIA,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

sections of the CFS. The same, listed separately, get split and, therefore, the availability of cash at any given date is not known, and would require being worked each time the source of investment oran outgoing is to be verified. No wonder, it has been not. The second deficiency in the said Statement is that it includes bank accounts