ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); Page 3 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Provided that where an assessment under

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) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) – The appellant company made claim for deduction of Rs. 80,28,91.589/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act as against the expenditure certified by DSIR

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

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

1 ought to have been followed by the Learned CIT(A). 4. The Learned CIT(A)/AO grossly erred on facts, in reducing the grant received towards cost of BMCU asset again from the cost of assets and disallowing depreciation thereof, though the appellant had already reduced the said Grant from the cost of assets and hence no depreciation

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 sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute

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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY 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

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

ASPINWALL & COMPANY 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

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.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ( PRESENTLY- KERALA GRAMIN BANK),MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE_2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

35,9407- towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances and the same was disallowed on the ground that no provision has been made in the accounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, TIRUR vs. M/S. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK H.O., MALAPPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

35,9407- towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances and the same was disallowed on the ground that no provision has been made in the accounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

35,9407- towards provision for bad and doubtful advances of rural advances and the same was disallowed on the ground that no provision has been made in the accounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

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

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

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

1)(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, such claim had to be preferred in the previous year in which capital expenditure was incurred. As per the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings it had requested the Assessing Officer to allow such deduction, but this was not accepted. 18. Learned CIT(A), after considering the arguments

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

1)(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, such claim had to be preferred in the previous year in which capital expenditure was incurred. As per the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings it had requested the Assessing Officer to allow such deduction, but this was not accepted. 18. Learned CIT(A), after considering the arguments