THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

depreciation for each of the relevant I.T(TP).A. No. 514Coch/2019 & C.O. No.47/Coch/2019 assessment year Sub-section 7 Transfer of goods and services must be at fair Not applicable market value of goods in case of availing deduction under section 10a of the Act Sub-section 7A Tax holiday benefits in case of transfer of Not applicable undertaking pursuant

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

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

depreciation on software developed by Directors and software purchased from Oasis Infotech Limited which are allowed by the CIT (A). 7. At the outset, the learned AR for he assessee submitted that these grounds are squarely covered by the order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench “A”, Hyderabad passed in ITA Nos. 534/Hyd/2008, 151 to 153/Hyd/2009 for assessment years

THE JT CIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

254 and as interpreted by the Apex Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), we do not see any reason to think that the Tribunal has committed an illegality by directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh duly adverting to the claim of the assessee for the benefit of Section 10A. 7. Though the learned

M/S.ALLIANZ CORNHILL INFORMATION SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. JTCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

254 and as interpreted by the Apex Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), we do not see any reason to think that the Tribunal has committed an illegality by directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh duly adverting to the claim of the assessee for the benefit of Section 10A. 7. Though the learned

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961( 43 of 1961). (5) (a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning, or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture

AMALGAM FOODS LIMITED,KOCHI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Amalgam Foods Limited Dy. Cit, Circle-1, Alappuzha Amalgam House, Bristow Road, Vs. Willingdon Island, Kochi-682 002 [Pan:Aabca 8283D] (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Smt. J. M. Jamuna Devi Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 : 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 26.12.2019, For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-2002. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. Taking Note Of The Request Dated 05.02.2024 By Sri R. Srinivasan, Ca, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, That His Personal Appearance May Be Dispensed With & The Matter Decided After Considering Written Submissions, Enclosed Along With, The Hearing In The Matter Was Proceeded With.

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26.12.2019, for assessment year (AY) 2001-2002. 2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee-appellant when the appeal was called out for hearing. Taking note of the request dated 05.02.2024 by Sri R. Srinivasan, CA, the learned Counsel for the assessee, that his personal appearance

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

254 CTR 233 and Fortis Hospitals Ltd (ITA 132/2021), by treating non- compete fee as Capital in nature and not eligible for depreciation, without considering the fact that the High Court of Madras, recently in 2021, in the case of CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 55), after considering on the decision of the Delhi High Court

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

254 CTR 233 and Fortis Hospitals Ltd (ITA 132/2021), by treating non- compete fee as Capital in nature and not eligible for depreciation, without considering the fact that the High Court of Madras, recently in 2021, in the case of CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 55), after considering on the decision of the Delhi High Court

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

254 CTR 233 and Fortis Hospitals Ltd (ITA 132/2021), by treating non- compete fee as Capital in nature and not eligible for depreciation, without considering the fact that the High Court of Madras, recently in 2021, in the case of CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 55), after considering on the decision of the Delhi High Court

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

254 CTR 233 and Fortis Hospitals Ltd (ITA 132/2021), by treating non- compete fee as Capital in nature and not eligible for depreciation, without considering the fact that the High Court of Madras, recently in 2021, in the case of CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 55), after considering on the decision of the Delhi High Court

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

254 CTR 233 and Fortis Hospitals Ltd (ITA 132/2021), by treating non- compete fee as Capital in nature and not eligible for depreciation, without considering the fact that the High Court of Madras, recently in 2021, in the case of CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 55), after considering on the decision of the Delhi High Court

THE ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD vs. M/S. SNOFIELD FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.The Income Tax Officer -1 Vs M/S. Snofield Foods Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Door No. V/623B, Marutharode English Church Road Village, Kuppayode Road Palakkad 678014 Marutharode, Palakkad 678007 Pan – Aafcs3164B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veermani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.06.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2006-07. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By Assessing Officer U/S 41(1), Has Not Gone Into The Merits Of The Issue Simply Relying On The Fact That The Similar Issue Is Already Decided In Favour Of The Assessee In The Case Of Sister Concerns. 2) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Not Taken Into Consideration That The Assessee Should Have Credited Percentage Of Deduction Of The Freezer Deposit Every

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 o the Act (order dated 30.03.2014). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on various orders of the ITAT which are detailed in the impugned order. The relevant finding

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi) 2) CIT vs. M/s. Walchand& Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (65 ITR 381 (SC) 3) CIT vs. M/s. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) (SC) 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance computed u/s. 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year under consideration. In this context, the Ld. AR relied on the following

THE ADIT ( EXEMPTION), KOCHI vs. M/S.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation for charitable trusts have been introduced in the Income Tax Act by inserting sub-section (6) of section 11 by the Finance Act, (No.2), 2014 with effect from 01/04/2015, i.e., assessment year 2015- I.T.A. Nos. 327&507/Coch/2019 16. He relied on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Kalinga Cultural Trust cited supra