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

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

depreciation on undivided share of land treating them as cost paid towards building. 8. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the onus to establish the linkage between the borrowed funds and the interest free loans to the sister concerns lies on the assessee. 9. It is prayed that the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income

M/S AC CARGO MANAGEMENT P.LTD,,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri George George. K.] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 320/Coch/2013. िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. Vs. M/S. Ac Cargo Management The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd, Ward 1(1) 1St Floor, Chacko Chambers, Kochi Civil Lines Road, Palarivattom, Kochi 682 025. [Pan Aaeca 2206K] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ"/Respondent) ू"यथ"

28-3- 1990 in paragraph 3 as under: “3. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law. The Board have been advised that the applicability of the provisions of section 194C will have to be examined with reference to the terms and conditions of each contract. In a case where the Board had occasion to examine

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

28 September 1999) units. Sub-section 2(ii) The unit should not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence. (The eligible unit of the company were newly formed in AY 1999-2000) Sub-section The unit should not be formed by transfer of 2(iii) plant and machinery previously used. Sub-section 3 Sales

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 7. The Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in not accepting that the expense was incurred for purchase of fixed assets which is neither income nor expenditure, but the amount debited to the fixed asset accounts. These expenses have not been claimed as an expense through 5 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben

MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— ………………… (6) "written down value" means— (a) ………………… (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

28,10,446.92 is therefore clearly allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 37 of the IT Act and is not to be considered under Rule 7 A (2). 4 (i) As to the issue of Replanting expense of Rs.2,47,38,874.24, it may kindly be noted that Rule 7 A applicable to Rubber is on similar lines

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

28,10,446.92 is therefore clearly allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 37 of the IT Act and is not to be considered under Rule 7 A (2). 4 (i) As to the issue of Replanting expense of Rs.2,47,38,874.24, it may kindly be noted that Rule 7 A applicable to Rubber is on similar lines

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]

depreciation. It was observed that while section 11 of the Act provides for computation of income of an institution from the property held for charitable or religious purposes and for the application of income, section 28

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

28 (va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

28 of the paper books, which were not disputed by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, we hold that the 50% cost of the improvement is eligible for indexation cost while calculating the capital gain. 15. The next controversy arises whether the gain arising on the sale of depreciable assessed is eligible for exemption under section

THE ITO,, ALAPPUZHA vs. M/S.EXTRAWEAVE P. LTD, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. Arattukulangara Complex 264B/Cmc 1 Vs. A.N. Puram, Alapuzha 688011 Sakteeswara Junction Cherthala 688524 Pan – Aabce5438L Appellant Respondent

Depreciation 3,36,17,037 2,98,15,179 38,01,858 Business loss 40,37,633 10,08,807 30,28,826 Total 3,76,54,670 3,08,23,986 68,30,684 9 M/s. Extraweave Pvt. Ltd. In this regard the assessee submitted that the profit from the exempted unit is to be calculated on standalone basis

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 on intangible assets after due application of mind. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. JL Morrison India Ltd (366 ITR 593) wherein while quashing revision order under section 263, it has held that as under: “87. The Assessing Officer was required to examine the return filed

NIZAR,THODUPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS,, THODUPUZHA/

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

28 to 43C, in the case of an assessee engaged in retail trade in any goods or merchandise, a sum equal to five per cent of the total turnover in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case may be, a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as declared by the assessee in his return