GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

depreciation. 7. Regarding validity of invoking of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the CIT, Section 263 of the Income

CSB BANK LTD.,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

263 was issued to the assessee on 12.02.2021. In response to the same the assessee made a detailed submission stating their points of contention in each issue. The points of contention in each issue are summarised as under: 2.1 Allowability of provision for sick leave 1. The assessee states that the section 43B(f) provides that any sum payable

CSB BANK LTD ( FORMERLY THE CATHOLIC SRIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

263 was issued to the assessee on 12.02.2021. In response to the same the assessee made a detailed submission stating their points of contention in each issue. The points of contention in each issue are summarised as under: 2.1 Allowability of provision for sick leave 1. The assessee states that the section 43B(f) provides that any sum payable

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific research, section 35A deals with expenditure on acquisition of patent right or copy right. Section 35AB deals with expenditure on know-how. Section 35ABB deals with expenditure for obtaining licence to operate telecommunication services. Section 35AC deals with expenditure

M/S.BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

263 is rejected. 8. The main contention of the Ld. AR is that loss arising on account of fluctuation of exchange rate with regard to loan availed for acquisition of fixed assets is a revenue loss and not a capital loss. Now the question that arises for our consideration is that whether gain on account of foreign exchange fluctuation

THE ACIT,CIR-1(1),, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.US TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the

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

depreciation for each of the relevant I.T(TP).A. No. 514Coch/2019 & C.O. No.47/Coch/2019 assessment year Sub-section 7 Transfer of goods and services must be at fair Not applicable market value of goods in case of availing deduction under section 10a of the Act Sub-section 7A Tax holiday benefits in case of transfer of Not applicable undertaking pursuant

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961. I.T.A. No.142/Coch/2017 3. The first issue is with regard to deduction of Rs.25,00,000/- which was value of advance share investment. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee had financed the project promoted by Manila Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (MEPL) by way of share capital and also loan. It was submitted that

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the learned revisionary authority had extracted its jurisdiction only for the purpose of computation of net profit so as to finalise the book profit u/s. 115JB(2) of the Act. We conclude that within the given facts, there is no issue of actual write-off in principle. Rejected accordingly. Cochin

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the learned revisionary authority had extracted its jurisdiction only for the purpose of computation of net profit so as to finalise the book profit u/s. 115JB(2) of the Act. We conclude that within the given facts, there is no issue of actual write-off in principle. Rejected accordingly. Cochin

THEDCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the learned revisionary authority had extracted its jurisdiction only for the purpose of computation of net profit so as to finalise the book profit u/s. 115JB(2) of the Act. We conclude that within the given facts, there is no issue of actual write-off in principle. Rejected accordingly. Cochin

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the learned revisionary authority had extracted its jurisdiction only for the purpose of computation of net profit so as to finalise the book profit u/s. 115JB(2) of the Act. We conclude that within the given facts, there is no issue of actual write-off in principle. Rejected accordingly. Cochin

M/S.ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPN OF KERALA LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation claimed by the company. The subject matter of the appeal is the same as the matter raised in the proceedings u/s 263 which is barred as per Clause (c) of Explanation 1 of Section

PARISONS FOODS PRIVATE LTD,CALICUT vs. DCIT , CIRCLE 1(1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.(Through Virtual Hearing) Parisons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 6/1183, Kunhipari Buildins Kozhikode Calicut 673032 Vs. Pan – Aaccp2898J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ilaiyaraja, K.S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 01.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Refining & Sale Of Crude Edible Oil & Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005 & The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By Accepting The Returns. Subsequently The Cit Invoked His Suo Moto Revision Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act To Disallow The Additional Depreciation Claimed U/S 32(1)(Iia) Of The Act & Directed The Ao To Complete The Assessment De Novo By Considering The Claim Of Additional Depreciation Of 15%. Thereafter The Ld. Ao

Section 263 of the Act to disallow the additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and directed

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

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

263 only authorised him to examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that restriction of power cannot affect the powers of the Tribunal which is bound to exercise under Section 254 of the Act. In such a situation, having regard to the language of Section

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

263 only authorised him to examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that restriction of power cannot affect the powers of the Tribunal which is bound to exercise under Section 254 of the Act. In such a situation, having regard to the language of Section

M/S.COOL MINDS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: CIT(A) the it was claimed by the Assessee that deduction under Section 10B of the Act was initially claimed by the Assessee under the bona fide belief that it is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The CITT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee agreeing with the Assessing Officer and holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in not considering the claim made by the Assessee under Section 10A of the Act. Now the Assessee is in

263 of the Act and the order of the CIT may be cancelled. In our opinion, though the assessee made the claim before the CIT that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10A, the claim of sec. 10A was not examined by the lower authorities and the CIT straight away directed the AO to withdraw the exemption made

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

section 263 of the Income Tax -1961, the CIT(E) set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the same afresh after considering all issues raised and after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Now the contention of the Ld. AR before us is that depreciation

CABOT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOCHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

depreciation in a higher sum, even as the same would not impact the tax liability, being still higher u/s.115JB of the Act. As regards deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act, the amendment to the said section by Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.04.2018, made it amply clear that the deduction thereunder is to be with reference to the ‘total income’ computed