ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made

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)

224/- per Kg on a factory to factory basis Depreciation on assets in Andhra Pradesh - Rs 20,03,669/- (Vide Schedule to Fixed assets) No. of bags processed in Andhra Pradesh - 18,563 nos. Depreciation per kg.- Rs.5.33 Administrative Overheads (estimated) - Rs. 10/- per kg. So, total cost - Rs.228/- This is taken as the step up price after taking cognizance

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K.

224 ITR 414 where ginning factory was purchased and converted into a Cinema Theatre for exhibiting cinema. 4. The Ld. ClT(A) ought to have examined the break-up of the expenses of Rs. 60,25,239/-incurred for repairs and maintenance as listed below and found that they are all Revenue Expenditure. Labour Aluminum 37,400 Carpenter

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

section will not apply to payment of loans or payment towards the purchase price of capital assets such as plant and machinery not for resale. 17. It is observed from the above said clarification of the CBDT that if the expenditure pertains to the purchase price of capital assets, such as plant and machineries which are not used for resale

KINGS INFRA VENTURES LTD,THEVARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (2), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

depreciation, being AY 2010-11, and AY 2012-13 onwards, had exceeded his jurisdiction? 4 | P a g e Kings Infra Ventures Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 4.2 Our first observation in the matter is that there is nothing on record; in fact, not even a contention to that effect at any stage, of the assessee having returned the income

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

224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone Counters

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

224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone Counters

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

224,205.22 Royalty from Fuel/BPCL for aircraft fuelling 4,530,104.14 Royalty Terminal Handling Services & Valet Services 3,016.631.56 Total 204,306,040.92 7.3 However, it was observed that the following heads of royalty income are incidental and related to providing better passenger services, but they cannot be treated as derived from airport operations. These include- Royalty Mobile Phone Counters

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

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

section 13(i)c(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, it was assessed as on AOP doing business in running of the college and the Trustees were doing business in the guise of charity. Ground No. 1 : Denial of exemption u/s. 11: A.Ys 2004-05 to 2010-11 17. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer was correct