MASCOT INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KANNUR

In the result we partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the assessment made on the entertainment expenses and deleted the other expenses incurred by the assessee from the levy of FBT

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 250, the appellant has infact submitted detailed submissions together with the relevant circular, vide Acknowledgement No:845535491141222, (copy enclosed Please also refer Para - 3), Page 3. However the submissions furnished by assessee is reiterated in Para 4 of the order by the appellate authority in toto. These submissions though stated in full are not seen considered while disposing

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% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act discussing the grounds relating to valuation of closing stock, disallowance of section 47 (XIII) and claim of depreciation

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 154 of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the denial

ESATTO BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the foregoing terms, and it’s stay petition dismissed as unfructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Sa No. 120/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Esatto Builders Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) 29/229 A5, 229 A6, Jp Complex Kozhikode 673001 Near Civil Station, Quilandy Vs. Kozhikode 673305 [Pan: Aacce2371D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 30.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012- 13. The assessee has also filed a Stay Application (SA) qua it’s instant appeal. 2. At the outset Shri Mathew, the learned counsel for the assessee, would, in pursuance of Ground No. 7.1 of it’s Grounds of Appeal (GoA), submit that

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

250 15 Reimbursement of expenses 1,07,78,001 16 Recovery of expenses 3,69,14,146 3. On noticing the above international transactions, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the purpose of benchmarking the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 28.10.2016 3 Apollo Tyres

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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 Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the rectification order dated 11/02/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

VISWANATHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ALUVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2015-16, date of order 26/06/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 27/03/2022. 2 ITA 606/Coch/2025 VishwanathanKrishnakumar 2. The brief facts

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/02/2013, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The present appeal has come up for hearing in view of the Order, dated

INDO GERMAN CARBONS LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciation whereas confirmed the disallowance of provision of bad and doubtful debts and advances. 3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the CIT(A). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) issued under section 250

PRIME PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,THIRD FLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income

KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE -1 , KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited Athani Aluva Adit, Range-1 Vs. Ernakulam Kochi Kerala 683 585 Pan No : Aaack9968Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Remya S. Menon, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 24.4.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064318699(1) For The Ay 2011-12 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam Page 2 of 6 Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited, Ernakulam Page 3 of 6 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a public sector undertaking owned