ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNIONS LTD.,KOCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 32(1)(iia) which as submitted is mandatory in nature. It may also be noted that there is no provision in the Act providing that balance 50 % will not be allowed in succeeding year. Reducing grant from WDV for purpose of depreciation The assessee during the year received a grant of Rs.3,72,68,000 towards purchase of plant

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

1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation

CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO.(P) LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for the machinery used for manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete? (iii) Whether on the facts

DIADORA SHOES PVT LTD,CALICUT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CALICUT

In the result, the assessee’sappeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdiadora Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2 Vkc Tower, Kolathra P.O Calicut 673001 Vs. Calicut 673655 [Pan:Aabcd9692D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 32(1)(ii) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.04.2016, is retrospective in nature? While the assessee before us relies on the decisions in the following cases, the Revenue relies on the decision in Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure(India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Del) (copy on record), rendered relying on the decision in Sedco Forex International Drill

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery

THE ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in building, repair and maintenance work of ships. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by making certain disallowances. Later, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on plant & machinery

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1) of the Act would mean "actual expenditure incurred, held that no disallowance could be made under the said Section when no expenditure had 'actually' been incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning of the exempt income. Attention is also invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

M/S.JOY ALUKKAS INDIA P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am& Shri Rahul Chaudharyit (Tp) A No. 119/Coch/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) & It (Tp) A Nos. 38 & 643/Coch/2017 (Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-14)

32,43,154/-. The TPO also suggested the TP adjustment of Rs. 1,54,18,632/- on account of expenses towards fee for brand utilization expenditure by adopting the Bright Line test method vide order dated 30/01/2015 passed u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act. 7. The AO on receipt of the TPO’s order passed draft assessment order on 27/12/2016