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)

255 per share determined by the Assessing Officer as per rule 11 UA(1 )(c)(b). 15. Mr. B S. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee would support the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) cannot be invoked as was rightly held by the appellate authority

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

7. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Act itself indeed give option to the assessee to claim the impugned depreciation even in the subsequent assessment years as well subject to the condition that the “written down 5 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

7. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Act itself indeed give option to the assessee to claim the impugned depreciation even in the subsequent assessment years as well subject to the condition that the “written down 5 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

7. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Act itself indeed give option to the assessee to claim the impugned depreciation even in the subsequent assessment years as well subject to the condition that the “written down 5 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

7. It is thus clear that the provisions of the Act itself indeed give option to the assessee to claim the impugned depreciation even in the subsequent assessment years as well subject to the condition that the “written down 5 ITA Nos.71& 255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced

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