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

2 Assessment Year 2007-2008 under section 10A of the Act can still be granted to the Assessee. - CIT vs. Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 47 & 77/2015, dt. 10/10/2017 – Ker. HC) [confirming the Order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.97/Coch/2014, dt. 28/08/2014 – Coch. Trib.] - CIT vs. Technovate E. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.100/2012, dt. 26/02/2013

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

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts relate to the appeal in ITA No.239/Coch/2023 for assessment year 2011-2012 are stated hereunder. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee amounting to INR 93,75,000 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2 M/s. Snofield Foods Pvt. Ltd. year as his income as the assessee was claiming depreciation on the value of the asset. 3) Mere relying on the Hon'ble ITAT's order without verification of corresponding facts and applicability in assessee's case has made the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) against the interest of revenue

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

2). All payments in excess of Rs.2,500 at one time whether for goods or services obtained for cash or 6 P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan vs. Asst. CIT credit, which are deductible in computing the income, have to be made by crossed cheque or bank draft. Thus, the price of goods purchased for resale or use in manufacturing process

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 68,57,200. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

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