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

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

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find

THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

depreciation claimed u/s. 31 Rs. 31,704/-. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find

M/S.PSN AUTOMOBILES P. LTD,COCHIN- vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Psn Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Corporate Circle 1(3) 34/652, Civil Line Road Kochi Vs. Padivattom, Edappally P.O. Cochin 682024 Pan – Aabcp6075A Appellant Respondent

depreciation under the Explanation 1 to Section 31(1)” 4 M/s. PSN Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions

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 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

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

section 10(31) of the Act and also set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment keeping in view the ratio of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 201 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires