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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced by the depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

255-257/Coch/2021 Malabar Cements Limited. value” of the relevant fixed asset has to be reduced by the depreciation actually allowed, which is ‘Nil’ in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Dom Dooma India Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 392 (SC) has also decided the very issue against the department as follows: - “8. The key word

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

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

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

8 factory buildings constituted a mistake apparent from the record. As pointed out earlier on July 12, 1982, the Income-tax Officer passed rectification orders dealing, inter alia, with the question of extra shift allowance. At that time also the assessee did not specifically raise the issue relating to factory buildings. The assessee had filed appeals before the Commissioner