MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 43(6)(b) to mean – ‘limited for depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee.” 6 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to accept

MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,WALAYAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 43(6)(b) to mean – ‘limited for depreciation actually taken into account or granted and given effect to, i.e., debited by the Income-tax Officer against the incomings of the business in computing the taxable income of the assessee.” 6 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to accept

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

4, 1986, was not hit by the bar of limitation if July 12, 1982, the date on which the orders under section 154 were passed by the Income-tax Officer for these years, was taken into account. The Income-tax Officer was not impressed by the assessee's argument in this regard. The Income-tax Officer, on his part, held

THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA 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 10, is not includible in the total income. ITA Nos.1-2/Coch/2020 4 M/s.Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. 1. The finding of the Kerala High Court could be found to be inconsistent with the provision and reality in plantation based on the following arguments” The findings in the judgment are narrated in bold: (a) Rule 7A(2) only provides for deduction

THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA 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 10, is not includible in the total income. ITA Nos.1-2/Coch/2020 4 M/s.Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. 1. The finding of the Kerala High Court could be found to be inconsistent with the provision and reality in plantation based on the following arguments” The findings in the judgment are narrated in bold: (a) Rule 7A(2) only provides for deduction

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.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

255 ITR 117 and CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306. 30. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Moters (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of See 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

255 ITR 117 and CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306. 30. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Moters (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of See 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively

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

255 CTR 63) wherein it was held that for the purpose of section 10B of the I.T. Act, 100% EOU is only the undertaking which is so approved by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 40 of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and not the undertaking having approved by Director STPI

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

255 CTR 63) wherein it was held that for the purpose of section 10B of the I.T. Act, 100% EOU is only the undertaking which is so approved by the Board appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 40 of Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 and not the undertaking having approved by Director STPI

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 Sils Karingattil Jose DCF method. The appellant also submitted the valuation report. The Assessing Officer found that it is not backed by any documentary evidence. Hence, the Assessing Officer rejected the valuation report of the appellant and made the valuation as per NAV method in accordance with Rule 11U r.w. Rule 11UA (1)(c)(b) of the Income

M/S.NAVIGANT BPM (INDIA) P. LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS REVENUE MED INDIA P. LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, ground No.4

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

255 CTR 63 (Del.)]. According to the A.O., the assessee’s unit was not approved by an appropriate authority constituted u/s 14 of the Industrial (Development & Regulations) Act, 1951 and hence was not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. IT(TP)A No.57/Coch/2016 4 SA No.62/Coch/2017. M/s.Navigant BPM (India) Pvt.Ltd. The assessee in the course of assessment

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only the assessments pending before the Assessing Officer for completion shall abate and that under Sec.153A

SRI.PELEXY K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

255. (iii) Guruprema Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. Nos.255 to 257(Mum.)/2010 in Page at paragraph-15, the issue is decided as under; - "In view of these decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches, we have to necessarily hold that only the assessments pending before the Assessing Officer for completion shall abate and that under Sec.153A