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

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

depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period in case of certain domestic companies. Section 35 deals with expenditure on scientific

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

depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation

M/S.HLL LIFECARE LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

section 35(2)(ia) of the Act and was also not known whether assessee had excluded such land value. Again as per the learned CIT(A), assessee could not clarify whether the assets had claimed depreciation

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

35. The result of assessment/appellant order is that the amount of grant received, is reduced from the value of asset twice. This is a gross error and the said adjustment requires to be deleted. 5. For these and other grounds that may be further adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the AO/CIT -A requires to be modified

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

section 43(1) of the I.T. Act and fixing the actual cost of the asset. I.T.A. No.413/Coch/2018 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Poulose and Mathen P. Ltd. (236 ITR 416) wherein it was held

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

Section 43 (3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the decision of the Kerala High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also submitted that though SLP filed against the decision was dismissed

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

Section 43 (3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the decision of the Kerala High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also submitted that though SLP filed against the decision was dismissed

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 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

section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. Replantation Expenses were disallowed only where the Replantation was undertaken in an abandoned area. Kindly refer to 262 ITR 388 which is at running pages 31 to 32 of this argument note. Please see para

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

section 43(3) where the Legislature has accepted that the entire cost of replanting is fully allowed as a deduction in lieu of depreciation. Replantation Expenses were disallowed only where the Replantation was undertaken in an abandoned area. Kindly refer to 262 ITR 388 which is at running pages 31 to 32 of this argument note. Please see para

THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,KOLLAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

35 and 35A to 35E. 24. Section 37(1) states that any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". But, Section 37 (1) excludes three items of expenditure. They are (i) expenditure

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

section in the same or any other precious year. Accordingly, in the case of charitable organizations depreciation cannot be treated as application from assessment year 2015-16 onwards. So it is very clear that they can claim depreciation as application of income upto and including assessment year 2014-15. Kind attention of Hon'ble Commissioner is invited to the recent

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

35,318/-) and therefore only the solatium and interest could be taxed as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b) read with section 145A(b) in the AY 2013-14 and compensation for acquisition of land should be taxed as per section 45 r.w. section 48 in the AY 2013-14; 6. should have appreciated that the learned Assessing

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

35 is to be made. The Ld. DR noted that this income is only a salvage value got from an exhausted stock – Just like the money got on sale of empty gunny bags by a cement dealer or of empty bottles by a bar hotel. There is no point in calling the trees a capital asset. According