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

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

254 CTR 0233 wherein it was held that in the absence of ownership of asset on which depreciation is claimed, depreciation cannot be allowed as a deduction. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Parliament had conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income

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

Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2019 by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and additions as under: I.T.A. No.854/COCH/2024 Prime Property Developers (i) Disallowance of lump-sum diesel expenses: Rs. 10,00,000, on account of estimated inflation of labour expenses. (ii) Disallowance of 20% depreciation

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

section will not apply to payment of loans or payment towards the purchase price of capital assets such as plant and machinery not for resale. 17. It is observed from the above said clarification of the CBDT that if the expenditure pertains to the purchase price of capital assets, such as plant and machineries which are not used for resale