THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

section did not provide for any connection between the new machines for which additional depreciation was claimed and the goods manufactured. It held that the taxpayer was entitled to the additional depreciation and allowed the claim of the taxpayer". Thus, it was submitted that in view of the decision of Madras High Court in the case

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

section did not provide for any connection between the new machines for which additional depreciation was claimed and the goods manufactured. It held that the taxpayer was entitled to the additional depreciation and allowed the claim of the taxpayer". Thus, it was submitted that in view of the decision of Madras High Court in the case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. M/S.KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and

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

section 32 including building when the rate of depreciation on building is only 10% and not 100%. The equipments like STB can be considered if at all admissible for deprecation, to be @ 15% under the “plant and machinery” and not @ 100%. In this view of the matter, if at all depreciation can be treated as admissible, it shall not exceed

MUTHOOT HEALTHCARE P. LTD,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, , THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

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

26/- was made to the fixed assets. Thus total value of the assets after revaluation, as on 3103/2015, came to Rs.83,74,89,934/-. Therefore, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.9,74,38,761/- on the revalued assets for the F.Y. 2014-15 i.e., A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer after examining the claim of the assessee in detail, recomputed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,26,53,723/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2008-09, the amount shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 under the head “General Fund” was Rs.21,19,25,483/-. However, in the return of income filed for the AY 2009-10 and the revised computation filed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,26,53,723/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2008-09, the amount shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 under the head “General Fund” was Rs.21,19,25,483/-. However, in the return of income filed for the AY 2009-10 and the revised computation filed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,26,53,723/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2008-09, the amount shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 under the head “General Fund” was Rs.21,19,25,483/-. However, in the return of income filed for the AY 2009-10 and the revised computation filed

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

depreciation allowed for AY 2008-09 comes to Rs.2,26,53,723/-. Further, in the return of income for the AY 2008-09, the amount shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 under the head “General Fund” was Rs.21,19,25,483/-. However, in the return of income filed for the AY 2009-10 and the revised computation filed

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS P. LTD, KOCHI

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

26,467/- disallowed u/s. 43B of the Act. We observe that the assessee has recorded his turnover after deducting the service tax received and the service tax has been credited separately. In section 145, of the Act for determining the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources, the same

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

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

26. But, what is important to note is that under both provisions, namely Section 31 as well as Section 37(1), capital expenditure is excluded. If an amount paid on account of current repairs is in the nature of capital expenditure, Section 31 cannot be invoked. Similarly, Section 37(1) cannot also be invoked. 31. On the contention of Mr.T.Ravikumar

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration – Rs. 36,21,58,356/- iii. Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant made a claim for allowance of depreciation at the rate of 25% of the sum paid, placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. v. DDCIT, Tax case (Appeals) No.1195 by Hon’ble Madras High Court. (ii) Ind Global Corporate Fiannce (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com