DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

depreciation was allowed to be carried forward. It was fairly admitted by the Ld.Sr.DR that the assesseehas filed return of income within prescribed time although it was not supported by the audited accounts. It was submitted that the accounts of the assesse were audited much later on 05th February 2003. The Ld.Sr.DRrely on the ground Nos.3 and 5 and also

DCIT, KANNUR vs. M/S MANJOO & CO.,, KANNUR

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation claimed by the assessee @ 80% was restricted to 10% by the AO. The explanation given by the assessee does not seem acceptable. f. Agents Prize on tickets I.T.A. No.625/ Coch/2017 In the P & L Account the assessee had credited agents prize on super and special tickets at Rs.28,75,287/- in respect of sale of tickets other than Kerala

THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. Replantation Expenses were disallowed only where the Replantation was undertaken in an abandoned area. Kindly refer to 262 ITR 388 which is at running pages 31 to 32 of this argument note. Please see para

THE VELIMALAI RUBBER CO. LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ACIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. Replantation Expenses were disallowed only where the Replantation was undertaken in an abandoned area. Kindly refer to 262 ITR 388 which is at running pages 31 to 32 of this argument note. Please see para

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

251 ITR 61 affirmed on this point. Held also, remanding the matters to the High Court, that the questions: (a) whether advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee to create a brand image with enduring benefit are allowable as revenue expenditure (b) whether the Tribunal had erred in granting deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loan, in view

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

depreciation; the return for the preceding three years being also at a loss. The Kerala Automobiles Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT assesseedid not respond to the several notices of hearing, detailed at para 4 of the assessment order. This was followed by notices u/ss. 142(1) and 144 of the Act, all of which were sent both at the primary

M/S OIL PALM INDIA LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Oil Palm India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Xiv/130, Kottayam South P.O., Circle – 1, Kodimatha, Kottayam. Kottayam. Pan : Aaaci 3695 G Appellant Respondent

section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR filed a detailed submission with regard to the rectification order passed by the AO which is extracted as below: In fact, the issue of taxability of income from the manufacture and sale of palm oil has been a consistent issue in the assessment

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

depreciation on car -- 32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice

M/S.SOORYA DRUG HOUSE,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO,WD-2, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

depreciation on car -- 32,253 Total 24,15,165 22,22,127 Less : Additional income offered in the 19,00,000 20,00,000 returns to cover up the above mistakes. Additions in the assessment 5,15,165 2,22,127 3. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act were initiated by issuance of notice

M/S.MALANKARA PLANTATIONS LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. ACIT, CIR-1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

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

251 CTR 343 covered the case of the assesse. The learned assessing officer and the Hon'ble Commissioner of income tax (appeals) ought to have appreciated that the allowance provided under Rule 7A(2) is an allowance in lieu of depreciation similar to the allowance provided in Rule 8(2) and the legislature intended to give full deduction of cost

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)

depreciative. More so, of the assessee pleading his case sans reference to the Tribunal’s order in his own case! Reliance thereon, in terms of 9 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle the clear law qua judicial precedence, is, thus, misplaced (refer: Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Others

THE ACIT, 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

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

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

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