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

depreciation. It is also an allowance to offset the loss of ITA Nos.1-2/Coch/2020 6 M/s.Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. income or is in the form of a benefit granted to a farmer to recoup from the earnings the loss of revenue for. a period of 7 years, since the expenses on establishment remains the same irrespective of the extent under

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

depreciation. It is also an allowance to offset the loss of ITA Nos.1-2/Coch/2020 6 M/s.Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. income or is in the form of a benefit granted to a farmer to recoup from the earnings the loss of revenue for. a period of 7 years, since the expenses on establishment remains the same irrespective of the extent under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. In conformity with the direction of the lower authorities, the Assessing Officer passed the final order. 8. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is only a reimbursement of expenses, which does not include any element of profit so as to deduct

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

7. In conformity with the direction of the lower authorities, the Assessing Officer passed the final order. 8. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is only a reimbursement of expenses, which does not include any element of profit so as to deduct

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,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

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

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