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.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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

1-4-2015 whereas the year before us relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The Finance Act, 2014 brought an amendment to the first proviso to the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which reads as under – “Accordingly, Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in case of non-deduction

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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

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

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

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

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

depreciation. (h) the amount of deferred tax and the provision therefor; (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, (j) the amount standing in revaluation reserve relating to revalued asset on the retirement or disposal of such asset. Prior to the substitution, clause (i) and the proviso read as under

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

iii) is applicable. Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions of section 40A(3) has been violated by the assessee by making payments in excess of Rs.20,000/- in cash. Being so, the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Interseas, Sea Food I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 Exporters is directly applicable to the facts

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

iii) is applicable. Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions of section 40A(3) has been violated by the assessee by making payments in excess of Rs.20,000/- in cash. Being so, the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Interseas, Sea Food I.T.A. Nos. 301 & 303/Coch/2017 Exporters is directly applicable to the facts

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

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

iii) DCIT v Manish M Chheda 29 SOT 138 – Mumbai ITAT 7.2.3 In the above case, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal was considering the applicability of section 28(iv) of the I T Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that during the course of assessee’s profession, a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- was realised/collected

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