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

32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the assessee is eligible only for 50 per cent, depreciation, the balance 50 per cent

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

32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a one-time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably and purposively. The additional depreciation is allowed in the year of purchase and if in the year of purchase, the assessee is eligible only for 50 per cent, depreciation, the balance 50 per cent

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

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.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, as it was considered retrospective effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Export Company (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. 14. As regards ground No.6 and its sub-grounds, the grievance of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

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

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

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 is not capital receipt. The moment the service tax is realised, it becomes payable to the Govt. account

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

iv) of sub-section (2) of section 80G of the Act and hence, the restriction of CSR contribution is not applicable to this contribution. 7. Before us, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of authority below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee had incurred

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

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

depreciation of securities was held as stock-in-trade. He also stated that the same was claimed in accordance with AS 13 concerning accounting of investments. 4. The Assessing Officer opined that advance share investment/ share application money cannot assume the character of stock-in-trade. The assessee countered the views of Assessing Officer by stating that irrespective

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

iv) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for - I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 (A) industrial or agricultural development (B) Development of Infrastructure facility in India; or (C ) Development of Housing in India (ii) in respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for the construction

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

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

iv) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for - I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 (A) industrial or agricultural development (B) Development of Infrastructure facility in India; or (C ) Development of Housing in India (ii) in respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for the construction

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

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

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