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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin International Airport Ltd. ix. Dy. CIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Lad. [2011] 48 SOT 160 (URO)/16 taxmann.com 97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin International Airport Ltd. ix. Dy. CIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Lad. [2011] 48 SOT 160 (URO)/16 taxmann.com 97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

25-6-2012] vii. ITO v. Strides Arcolab Ltd. [2012] 138 (TD 323/24 taxmann.com 89 (Trib.)(Mum.) viii. Yamuna Prasad Peshwa v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 416 (Trib.) (Jodh.) of 2009, dated 9-12-2011] Cochin International Airport Ltd. ix. Dy. CIT v. Maharashtra Seamless Lad. [2011] 48 SOT 160 (URO)/16 taxmann.com 97 (Trib.) (Delhi) x. Balarampur Chini

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 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies only to those payments in respect of any expenditure debited to the Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction from income. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in affirming the disallowance of car depreciation and interest on car loan made by the Assessing Officer on account

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

depreciation thereon @ 25% U/s. 32 of the Act. The claim was allowed by the AO in the assessment made U/s. 143(3) of the Act. Now the question that comes up for our consideration is whether the “Right to Collect Toll” falls within the definition of “commercial right” or “intangible asset”?. The ITAT (Special Bench), Hyderabad in 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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25

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)

depreciation was claimed, thus the same qualifies for short term capital gain. 5. The AO further found that the new property purchased by the assessee consists of property being TC Nos. 25/1726, 25/1727, 25/1728 & 25/1729 for total area of 362.32 sq. mts out of which only property being TC No. 25/1729 having area of 70 sq. mts. is residential property

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F

depreciation in respect of intangible asset @ 10% treating as a building as against 25% claimed by the appellant following the order of the CIT(A) for the AY 2009-10. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of guarantee commission paid to State Government as per the provisions of section

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

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

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

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

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

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

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

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

section 25 of the Companies Act. The company was duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on10.09.2009 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward -1(1), Thrissur

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

depreciation, i.e. @25% p.a. The amount refundable thus reduces at a defined rate each passing year. This ascertained reduction in the amount refundable and, thus, the ceasing of the assessee’s liability qua deposit is regarded as it’s income by Revenue. How, one wonders, being axiomatic, could that be disputed, signify as it does the right to receive, case