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 is erroneous on facts and in law. 2.(i) Whether on facts CIT(A) was right in disallowing the claim u/s.47 (XIII) of the IT Act, since the appellant had complied with all the requirements

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

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

THARIF BUILDERS P. LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THEACIT, KOZHIKKODE

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

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

section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is issued to Shri Mohammed Kutty Haji @ Tharif Mall, Shri Hamza Puthukudy, Tharif Builders Pvt. Ltd. (name of person) to produce or cause to be produced books of account or other documents which will be useful for, relevant to, proceedings under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, or under the Income

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

4,36,55,867 9 Payment of royalty 1,49,06,399 10 Receipt of research and testing services 12,81,14,109 11 Receipt of corporate marketing services 391,40,800 12 Provision of corporate purchase 23,08,219 services 13 Provision of corporate information 2,32,10,5456 technology services 14 Investment in equity 50,02,98,250

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198(1) 3 256/Coch/2021 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291223(1) 4. 257/Coch/2021 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291249(1) Heard both the parties. Case file perused

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198(1) 3 256/Coch/2021 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291223(1) 4. 257/Coch/2021 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291249(1) Heard both the parties. Case file perused

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198(1) 3 256/Coch/2021 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291223(1) 4. 257/Coch/2021 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291249(1) Heard both the parties. Case file perused

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as below: - Sr. ITA No. AY NFAC order Date No. 1 71/Coch/2021 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2020- 25.03.2021 21/1037739568(1) 2 255/Coch/2021 2011-12 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291198(1) 3 256/Coch/2021 2012-13 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291223(1) 4. 257/Coch/2021 2016-17 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 11.10.2021 22/1036291249(1) Heard both the parties. Case file perused

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

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

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 2. The assessee is in the business of refining and sale of crude edible oil and filed its return of income on 29.10.2005 and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by accepting the returns. Subsequently the CIT invoked

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.

4) The Madras High Court in CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. [1998] 231 I IR 761, where the Income-tax Officer claimed to have found a mistake in granting a larger claim for depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there

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.

4) The Madras High Court in CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. [1998] 231 I IR 761, where the Income-tax Officer claimed to have found a mistake in granting a larger claim for depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there

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.

4) The Madras High Court in CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. [1998] 231 I IR 761, where the Income-tax Officer claimed to have found a mistake in granting a larger claim for depreciation on an asset which, according to him, was put to greater private use than what was claimed in the return, found that even assuming that there

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

4 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of 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

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

4 ITA No.239/Coch/2023 & Ors. M/s.Inditrade Capital Limited. had acquired a commercial right, which would fall within the ambit of “intangible asset” in terms of the provisions of 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