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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ,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

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

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

6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after calling for the remand report from the LJAO.Regarding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the burden of proof had been discharged by the assessee in the remand report proceedings. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that

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

6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after calling for the remand report from the LJAO.Regarding the addition made u/s 69A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the burden of proof had been discharged by the assessee in the remand report proceedings. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that

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

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

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

6 Purchase of semi finished goods 13,35,810 7 Purchase of second hand moulds 18,26,398 (purchase of capital goods) 8 Receipt of royalty 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