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

32(1)(iia) read with the second proviso the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the balance 50% of the depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year" and is not the above finding against law and perverse? 2. whether, on the Tribunal is right in law in holding that "the second proviso to section

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration is the nature of the said income. In one of the oldest cases decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 it is held that, "there is ample authority

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

32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

2. In the instant appeal, the solitary ground taken out for challenge to the impugned appellate order as well as assessment order is the purported disallowance of claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.59,000/- in respect of the assets acquired in preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2013- 2014 under section 32

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

2 ITA No.25/Coch/2014. M/s.Cherian Varkey Construction Co.P.Ltd. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal and authorities below erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for any additional depreciation under Section 32

TAG CHEMICALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) , TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Tag Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle - 1(1) Kinfra Bio-Technology & Trivandrum Industrial Zone Vs. Thrikkakara North Part Hmt Colony, Ernakulam 683503 [Pan: Aacct8064G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 TAG Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. Corporation and claimed depreciation thereon at Rs. 52,58,260/- only. As per the AO the lease hold right was taken with respect to land which is not depreciable and therefore the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal the learned CIT(A) confirmed the same

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.

2 of 10 (i) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) – AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 (ii) Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation

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.

2 of 10 (i) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) – AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 (ii) Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation

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.

2 of 10 (i) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) – AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 (ii) Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation

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.

2 of 10 (i) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) – AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 (ii) Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation

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.

2 of 10 (i) Disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 32(1)(iia) – AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 (ii) Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the payment made by the assessee to an overseas entity towards brokerage and commission – AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 (iii) Disallowance u/s.14A – AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Additional depreciation

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business while section 43(3) defines 'plant' in very wide terms saying "plant includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipments used

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business while section 43(3) defines 'plant' in very wide terms saying "plant includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipments used

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business while section 43(3) defines 'plant' in very wide terms saying "plant includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipments used

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

32 depreciation allowance is, subject to the provisions of section 34, permissible only in respect of certain assets specified therein, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business while section 43(3) defines 'plant' in very wide terms saying "plant includes ships, vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipments used

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

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly