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

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

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 of the Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business. Section 29

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

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

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 as service tax payable and the same

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

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

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.

section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 29. With regard

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.

section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 29. With regard

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.

section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 29. With regard

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

depreciation was allowed to be carried forward. It was fairly admitted by the Ld.Sr.DR that the assesseehas filed return of income within prescribed time although it was not supported by the audited accounts. It was submitted that the accounts of the assesse were audited much later on 05th February 2003. The Ld.Sr.DRrely on the ground Nos.3 and 5 and also

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.14,29,528/- since the assessee is only entitled for deduction u/s.24 of the I.T. Act. 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the arguments. However, the CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KAYAMKULAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.14,29,528/- since the assessee is only entitled for deduction u/s.24 of the I.T. Act. 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the arguments. However, the CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.14,29,528/- since the assessee is only entitled for deduction u/s.24 of the I.T. Act. 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the arguments. However, the CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee

M/S.WARRIERS HOSPITAL & PANCHAKARMA CENTRE,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, , ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

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

depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.14,29,528/- since the assessee is only entitled for deduction u/s.24 of the I.T. Act. 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the arguments. However, the CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee. 4. Against this, the assessee

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