THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA 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

31) of section 10, is not includible in the total income". (vi) It is pertinent to note that while most assessees having income from tea claimed deduction for cost of replantation of tea bushes under Rule 8(2) of the Income Tax Rules, some assessees started claiming depreciation

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

31 relates to allowability of repairs and insurance in respect of machinery, plant and furniture used for the purpose of business. Similarly, section 32 relates to allowability of 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

31) of section 10, is not Includible In the total income." ITA No.239 & 381/Coch/2018. 8 M/s.The Plantation Corpn. Of Kerala Ltd. & M/s.The Velimalai Rubber Co.Ltd. (iv) During this time, a controversy arose when some assessee's, in addition to claiming deduction for replantation as per Rule 8(2), also claimed depreciation

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

31) of section 10, is not Includible In the total income." ITA No.239 & 381/Coch/2018. 8 M/s.The Plantation Corpn. Of Kerala Ltd. & M/s.The Velimalai Rubber Co.Ltd. (iv) During this time, a controversy arose when some assessee's, in addition to claiming deduction for replantation as per Rule 8(2), also claimed depreciation

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

PLANT LIPIDS (P) LTD.,KADAYIRUPPU vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), KOCHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

31,34,000/- and Rs.1,06,40,000/- respectively. Also, all the investments being made in earlier financial years, there were no fresh Cochin International Airport Ltd. investments during the year. The Appellant also had enough interest free surplus funds available for making the investments and no borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of investments in subsidiary companies

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 on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads as under: “Section 57(iii) In the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions

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 on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads as under: “Section 57(iii) In the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions

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 on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads as under: “Section 57(iii) In the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions

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 on furniture, fittings, plant and machinery etc. in terms of section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act which reads as under: “Section 57(iii) In the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions

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

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

31,43,26/- 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

M/S.ABAD FISHERIES,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, CORPCIR-1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

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

depreciation under Section 31(1)(iia). From a perusal of the records, it is noticed that this aspect has not been